Skip to main content

Full text of "Hearing"

See other formats

San Francisco Public Library 


Not to be taken from the Library 

L 5*0 

WO ■ I 6 





OCT - 2 2002 



ROOM 113 


1:32 P.M. 





ROOM 113 


1:32 P.M. 

Reported by- 

Evelyn J. Mizak 
Shorthand Reporter 

3 1223 03273 9824 










GREG SCHMIDT, Executive Officer 

PAT WEBB, Committee Secretary 

NETTIE SABELHAUS, Consultant on Governor's Appointments 






California State Prison, Solano 

ROY MABRY, State President 

Association of Black Correctional Workers 

RICHARD TATUM, State President 

California Correctional Supervisors Organization 

Chicano Correctional Workers Association 


California Correctional Supervisors Organization 

RICHARD BLAIR, Chapter President 
CCPOA, Solano 

4 49386 SFPL: ECONO JRS 























CSEA at CSP Solano, Education 

CSEA, Solano; SEIU Local 1000 

V. MARI GOODMAN, DLC 7 07 President 
CSEA, SEIU Local 1000 

TERRY DICKINSON, Acting Associate Warden 
CSP Solano 

ROBERT LONG III, Correctional Counselor 
Department of Corrections 

CSEA Local 1000 


CSEA, California Correctional Institution 

DAVID TRISTAN, Chief Deputy Director 

Field Operations, Department of Corrections 

California State Prison, .Calipatria 

LEE POLK, Employee 
Pelican Bay State Prison 

ANTOINETTE M. TUTT, Associate Warden 
Ironwood State Prison 

B. CAYENNE BIRD, Director 


Calipatria State Prison Employees Association 


Citizens' Advisory Committee, Calipatria 

THELMA SWETICH, Public Information Officer 
Calipatria State Prison 

JORGE SANTANA, Chapter President 
CCWA Calipatria 























OCTAVIO PERAZA, Community Resources Manager 
Calipatria State Prison 

RAYMOND A. DIN, Southern Vice President 
Chicano Correctional Workers Association 

California Department of Corrections 

WILLIAM R. BRADEN, Retired Correctional Lieutenant 
Deuel Vocational Institution 

TIM BOREM, Chapter President 
CCSO, Calipatria 

MICHAEL MALDONADO, Correctional Lieutenant 
Centinela State Prison 

California State Prison, Centinella 


JOHN A. GARCIA, Chapter President 
CCSO, Centinela 

Mule Creek State Prison, lone 

SANDI CAMPBELL, Chapter President 
Mule Creek State Prison, CCPOA 



Pa 9 e 
Proceedings 1 

Governor ' s Appointees : 


California State Prison, Solano 1 

Background and Experience 1 

Questions by SENATOR KNIGHT re: 

Reason for Leaving Tehachapi 2 

Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Actions Taken to Improve Dental Care for 

Inmates 2 

Allegations re: Failure to Address 

Possible Escape Routes, Abuse of 

Authority, Lack of Response 4 

Concerns Expressed by CSEA re: 

Collective Bargaining Process 5 

Witnesses in Support: 

ROY MABRY, State President 
Association of Black Correctional Workers 
(In Support of All Four Wardens) 5 

RICHARD TATUM, State President 

California Correctional Supervisors Organization 6 


Chicano Correctional Workers Association 7 

JOSE MONTALBAN, Chapter President 

CCSO, Solano 7 

RICHARD BLAIR, Chapter President 

CCPOA, Solano 7 



California State Prison, Solano 9 

Witnesses in Opposition: 


CSEA, Solano 11 

Questions by SENATOR KARNETTE re: 

Grievances 15 

Negotiation Process 15 

Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

What Occurs after Arbitrator 

Finds in Favor of Grievor 16 

Union Representation, Bargaining 

Unit 1 18 

No Problems with Previous Warden 19 

MARI GOODMAN, President 

DLC 707 , CSEA, Tehachapi 21 

Questions by SENATOR KARNETTE re: 

Union's Ability to Interrupt When 

Wardens Attempt to Monopolize 

Meetings 21 

Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Purpose of Labor Management Meetings 22 

Hemodialysis Unit 26 

TERRY DICKINSON, Acting Associate Warden 

California State Prison, Solano 30 

Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Storm Drain Lines 31 

VI 1 

1 Questions by SENATOR KNIGHT re: 

2 Administrators at CDC 34 

3 Request by CHAIRMAN BURTON re 


Letter with Specific Allegations to 

5 Present to Inspector General 3 5 

6 ROBERT LONG, Correctional Counselor 

California State Prison, Solano 36 



14 Suggestion by CHAIRMAN BURTON re 







CCI , Tehachapi 3 8 

Questions by SENATOR KARNETTE re: 

Ability to Designate Parking in 

Labor Contract 4 

JERRY ENNIS, Senior Radiological Technologist 

CCI , Tehachapi 4 

Refer Hiring Action to State 

Personnel Board 44 

Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

18 Problem with Hemodialysis Unit 4 7 


Response from DAVID TRISTAN, Chief Deputy Director 

Field Operations 

California Department of Corrections 5 

Proposal to Form Committee to Resolve 

CSEA Labor -Management Issues 50 

Report Back to Rules Committee with 

Solutions, Resolutions and Findings 50 

Separation of Custody and Health Care 

Services in Prisons 51 

Storm Drains at Institutions 52 


Institutional Logs of Security Checks 52 

Hiring Practices ' 53 

Statements by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Continual Reinterpretations of 

Arbitrator' s Decision 53 

Response by MR . CAREY 54 

Motion to Confirm, but Hold Appointment on 

Floor Pending Report on Labor Issues 55 

Committee Action 56 


California State Prison, Calipatria 56 

Background and Experience 56 

Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

In-cell Pre-release Program 57 

Number of Times Instructor Sees 

Inmates 59 

Number of Instructors for In-cell 

Learning 59 

Average Number of Inmates Getting Out of 

Prison per Month 60 

Classification of Employee Providing 

Instruction for Pre-release Program 60 

Instructors vs. Counselors for Pre-release .... 61 

Responses by MR. TRISTAN 61 

Concerns and Complaints of Supervisors 

Re : Two Deaths at Institution 63 

Investigation into How Inmate Got 

Alcohol and Drugs • 64 


j Problems with Acquiring Staff because of 

Institution' s Location . . . '. 66 





Lockdown Situation 66 

Questions by SENATOR JOHNSON re: 

5 Investigation Conducted after Inmate's 

Death 67 

Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Investigation into How Inmate Acquired 

Drugs 6 8 

Inmate Death at Hands of Cell Partner 69 

Investigation by Outside Law 

Enforcement Task Force 70 

Response by MR. TRISTAN 71 

Questions by SENATOR KNIGHT re: 

Institution' s Investigation 72 

Questions by SENATOR KARNETTE re: 

Decision on Curriculum for Inmates 72 

Response by MR. TRISTAN 72 

Type of Counselors Used in CDC 74 

Witnesses in Support: 


Chicano Correctional Workers Association 

(Support for Remaining Two Wardens) 74 

LEE POLK, Associate Warden 

Pelican Bay State Prison 75 

ANTOINETTE TUTT, Associate Warden 

Ironwood State Prison 77 



JOHN MITCHELL, Correctional Food Manager 

Calipatria State Prison 79 


Citizens Advisory Committee, Calipatria 80 

THELMA SWETICH, Public Information Officer 

Calipatria State Prison 81 

MARI GOODMAN, DLC 707 President 

CSEA 82 

JORGE SANTANA, Chapter President 

CCWA, Calipatria 83 

OCTAVIO PERAZA, Community Resources Manager 

Calipatria State Prison 83 

RAY DIN, Correctional Counselor I 

Calipatria State Prison 84 

Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Description of Duties 84 

Definition of Case Management 85 

Lack of Participation in Pre- 

Release Programs 86 

Requirements to Become Correctional 
Counselor 86 


California Department of Corrections 87 

Witnesses in Opposition: 

RICHARD TATUM, State President 

California Correctional Supervisors Organization 88 

Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Time Saved with Proper Staffing 8 9 


Grade Rate of Supervisors 91 

2 Cross -coverage 92 

3 Questions by SENATOR JOHNSON re: 

6 Normal Response Time to Emergencies 94 


Allegation that Vacancies Caused 

Two Inmate Deaths 93 

BILL BRADEN, Retired Correctional Lieutenant 

Deuel Vocational Institution 95 

9 Questions by SENATOR KARNETTE re 

10 Ability to Use Budget in 

Filling Positions 96 



Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Training in CPR 97 

14 TIM BOREM, Chapter President 

CCSO, Calipatria State Prison 99 





-,j Request to Warden to Keep 

Meeting Confidential 105 

Suggestion to Warden by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Need for Meeting with Supervisory Staff 106 

Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Reason Only Supervisors Complain about 
Warden 101 

Complaint about Drawing 103 

Questions by SENATOR JOHNSON re: 

MIKE MALDONADO, Correctional Lieutenant 

Centinela State Prison 107 

XI 1 

Responses by MS. GARCIA re: 

Complaints by CCSO Addressed in 

February Meeting 110 

Motion to Confirm .' Ill 

Committee Action 112 


California State Prison, Centinela 112 

Background and Experience 112 

Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Impact of Overcrowding 113 

Witnesses in Support: 

RAY DIN, Southern Region Vice President 

CCWA 115 


Correctional Institution Committee, CSEA 115 

JOHN A. GARCIA, Correctional Lieutenant 

Centinela State Prison 115 

RICHARD TATUM, State President 

CCSO 115 

MICHAEL MALDONADO, Correctional Lieutenant 

Centinela State Prison ' 115 

Motion to Confirm 116 

Committee Action 116 


Mule Creek Prison, lone 116 

Background and Experience 116 

Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Prison at 213 Percent of Capacity 117 

XI 11 

! Excess Prisoners Housed in Gyms 117 

2 Minimal Lockdowns : 118 

3 Witnesses in Support: 





RICHARD TATUM, State President 

CCSO 119 


CSEA 119 


SANDI CAMPBELL, Chapter President 

CCPOA, Mule Creek Prison 12 

Witness in Opposition 




UNION 120 

Questions by SENATOR JOHNSON re: 



Reason Committee Should Take Accusations 

14 Seriously 122 

Meeting with California Department of 
Corrections and SECRETARY PRESLEY 124 

Need for Another Meeting with 
California Department of Corrections and 

18 Agency Secretary 12 5 

19 Motion to Confirm 125 


Committee Action 126 

Termination of Proceedings 126 

Certificate of Reporter 127 

Addendum: Written Comments Submitted by 

CAYENNE BIRD Several Days after 

Hearing Was Completed 12 8 


— 00O00-— 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: What we are going to do is get 
rid of the wardens so we can empty out the room. 

Thomas L. Carey. 

Those that are here on the Governor's 
Reorganization thing can probably go out and get a cup of coffee 
for 15 minutes at least and not miss anything, or stand around 
in a crowded room. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: In violation of all the fire 
laws . 


Go ahead, Sir. 

MR. CAREY: Senator Burton and Rules Committee 
Members, it is an honor to appear before you. I am Tom Carey, 
Warden at the California State Prison, Solano. 

Prior to serving at Solano, I was the Warden for 
three-and-a-half years at the California Institution, Tehachapi. 

I want to acknowledge the professional staff that 
work at these two institutions and thank them for their good 
work in support of me as their Warden. 

My CDC experience also includes assignments at 
San Quentin, Mule Creek State Prison, and the California 
Training Facility at Soledad. I have also served on an interim 
basis as the Chief of Training for the Department. 

I earned a Bachelor of Arts Degree from 
California State University in Fullerton and a Masters Degree in 
Education from Whittier College. 


My work experience, my educational background, 
provide a solid foundation for me to continue to serve as the 
Warden at the California State Prison in Solano. 

At this time I will conclude my opening remarks 
and respond to your questions. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Do you have any family you'd 
like to introduce? 

MR. CAREY: Yes. I'd like to introduce my wife, 
Tamsin; my daughter Amy; and my daughter-in-law Brandy. 

Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Questions, Senator Johnson. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: No questions. 

Senator Karnette. 
I don't have any questions. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Knight. 


How come you 'left Tehachapi? 

MR.' CAREY: I left Tehachapi for a couple of 
reasons. First, Solano has a very large academic program, and I 
have a Master's Degree in Education, and I'm very interested in 
education in the prison system. 

Secondly, for my five children and my grandbabies 
live in the Sacramento area. 


CHAIRMAN BURTON: What you have done, or what 
ac::cr.s have been taken on the custody side concerning the 
improvement cf dental care for the inmates? 

MP . CAREY: For inmates? 

1 CHAIRMAN BURTON: Dental care for inmates. 

2 MR. CAREY: For the inmates. 


4 MR. CAREY: Yes, sir. 

5 When I arrived at Solano, the inmates had been in 

6 the a lockdown situation for a long period of time. One of my 

7 immediate goals .was to get the prison into an unlocked 

8 situation. We started having bi-weekly unlocked meetings 

9 instead of lockdown -- 

10 CHAIRMAN BURTON: We're talking about dental care 

11 right now for the inmates. 

12 MR. CAREY: I'm sorry. 

13 For dental care, yes, sir. For dental care, the 

14 first thing we did was, we hired all the staff necessary, 

15 including the dental assistants. So, we now have in place a 

16 full staff at Solano to provide dental care. 

17 The second thing we did was to take an assessment 

18 of the actual work area where the care is provided. We 

19 determined that that area was inadequate. We identified another 

20 supplemental area. We have approved and purchased two 

21 additional dental chairs, and they're not installed yet. We're 

22 going through the competitive process. By June 14th, we should 

23 have our bids in to install two additional chairs. 

24 The other thing that we've done on -- completed 

25 now is, all dental duckets are on a priority basis, so that the 

26 inmates can come to dental services on priority basis. 

27 That's -- when you take the comparison of what we were doing in 

28 February, March, there were about 79 inmates getting ducketed 

over. The last week of May, we had 168. So, there's been a 
marked improvement in the access to dental care. 

As I indicated, it's because of the staff. It's 
because of looking at the operations, and installing the 
priority ducket system. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: We received a letter from the 
Acting Warden down there. Are you familiar with the letter? 

MR. CAREY: Yes, sir. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: With the allegations regarding 
the management failure to address possible escape routes, abuse 
of authority, lack of response, and then you talked about the 
medical issues. 

Can you kind of respond to that? 

MR. CAREY: Yes. 

On the drains, it's been the policy and practice 
at Solano since 1995 that those drains are to be inspected, and 
that has been ongoing, where we have the security unit at our 
institution that does that. 

In early October -- excuse me, early November, 
Odette Crawford at that time, when she was the AW Central 
Services, she brought the issue of the drains to us. We had 
them all rechecked, and we continue to have them checked as they 
have been doing since 1995. 

The process since I've been there, we have found 
some of the wells over the time have softened, and they have 
beer, re-secured. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Are you familiar with the 
czr.zerr.s expressed by the California State Employees Association 

concerning, I guess, the relationship with you, and how they 
feel you deal with them in the collective, bargaining process? 

MR. CAREY: Yes, I am. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: "Would you please respond to 

MR. CAREY: Yes. 

My management practice is to meet openly with the 
bargaining units. I have met openly with CSEA. We have a 
monthly meeting where we meet together with CSEA and their job 
stewards. We have continued those meetings. They provide the 
agenda, and we have gone down the agenda items, and we have 
addressed their concerns in that forum. 

We have minutes documenting each of those 
meetings . 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Witnesses in support. 

We have several letters of support that were 
entered into the record. 

MR. MABRY: Chairman Burton and Committee 
Members, Ms. Sabelhaus, the Rules Secretary, my name is Roy 
Mabry. I'm the State President, Association of Black 
Correctional Workers. 

I'm here today to show complete support for Tom 
Carey. This is my second round of testifying on behalf of 
Mr. Carey to be confirmed as the Warden. 

The work for complaints or support is always done 
prior to a hearing in the way the system is set up. I'd like to 
show that same support for the other three wardens, Mr. Knowles, 
Giurbino and Silvia Garcia. 

I make that comment about the work being done 
before because, you know, we got a system that we go through 
before we submit people. They go through our management teams 
out of Headquarters, and then we get the information here 
through the Legislators to address whatever the concerns are. 

I normally would just make one comment, and if we 
got a group of wardens coming up, as opposed to asking them to 
come back later on to make additional comments. But if 
necessary, because of some of the things you possibly experience 
during comments today, I'll come back and speak again later. 

If not, I'd like to make the support known for 
all of the wardens that's coming up now, specifically for a 
person I worked very close with during her initial appointment 
as warden and some of the things that she experienced. And she 
sort of worked herself through, and just give it 130 percent 
support, and that's Warden Garcia. And I'm really just looking 
forward to giving her a big hug after all this is over with. 

Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Other witnesses in support. 

MR. TATUM: I'm Richard Tatum. I'm the State 
President of the California Correctional Supervisors 

Our organization does not take these 
confirmations lightly. We have worked with Mr. Carey at 
Tehachapi when he was there with it. Worked with him while he's 
beer, at Solano. 

He works real well with our supervisors and 
lisier.s to what they have to say. He meets with them on a 

regular basis, and our organization is in full support of 
Mr. Carey. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Other witnesses. 

MS. AGUILERA-MARRERO: Good afternoon, 
distinguished panel. My name again is Suzanna Aguilera-Marrero, 
Sam for short, with the Chicano Correctional Workers 

I'm here today to express the support of the 
Chicano Correctional Workers Association for Mr. Tom Carey. 
This also is our second time coming up before you in his 
support, and we will continue to support him because he 
continues to have an open door, and he listens to everyone that 
has some input in all issues involved. Even though he doesn't 
always do what we want or what they want, he does do his best to 
be professional and to be fair in making the decisions that are 
going to be in the best interest of the institution for the 
safety and security of 'our communities. 

Thank you. 


Other witnesses. 

MR. MONTALBAN: I'm Correctional Sergeant 
Montalban. I work at CSP Solano, and I'm the Chapter President 
of CCSO. And we, the Chapter and the members, support Tom Carey 
because he's very fair with all supervisors at our institution. 


Other witnesses in support. 

Witnesses in opposition. Support? 

MR. BLAIR: Good afternoon. My name is Richard 


Blair. I am Chapter President at Solano. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Chapter President of what? 

MR. BLAIR: Solano, CCPOA, Chapter President, 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Does your contract give you 
guys comp time when you come up here like this? 

MR. BLAIR: No, sir. We used our own time. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: How did you miss that one in 
that contract. 

[Laughter. ] 

MR. BLAIR: I knew this was going to come up. I 
think my Chief Job Steward and Vice President used sick time, 
but I did not, sir. 

[Laughter. ] 


MR. BLAIR: I'd just like to say that the Chapter 
met some three weeks ago, and the board met, and we'd like to 
tell you that we unanimously confirmed Mr. Carey as up for 
confirmation, and we fully support him. 

We have a very open line of communication with 
the Warden now, and we've had in the past, but this is a little 
bit better. And like some people, say we don't get everything 
we want, but we're talking about it. 

So, we're here to support Mr. Carey to the 
fullest. Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Other witnesses in support. 
Witnesses in opposition. Are you opposition or support? 

MR. SANDERS: Suooort . 

My name is Richard Sanders. I'm a teacher over 
at CSP Solano. I've been there since 1985 as a teacher and as a 
job steward. 

This is exciting to be here It's my first 

I have a few points in favor of Mr. Carey that I 
would like to point out through my experience. I attend, on a 
regular payday, meetings, the safety meetings, which the Union 
sends representatives from each bargaining unit. I've been 
doing this for 10-12 years already. And I find going to the 
meetings that I am treated in my position as an equal. They 
often listen, Mr. Carey listens, to what I have to say, and if 
action is warranted, then he follows through with it. 

So, I cannot say anything else, anything but 
positive remarks about how he treats me at meetings with the 
Safety Meeting, which is most management staff is there. 
There's been many times in the past where I've been less treated 

I would also like to say that I think Mr. Carey, 
and I'm really speaking for myself and my own experience, that 
he supports education. I do not know many wardens or have seen 
many wardens come up to what we call the hill, which is a good 
little trek, and sit down for a two or three hour WASC Committee 
meeting, and partake in, you know, the process, and listen to 
our concerns for the teachers. And wants to be kept up to date 
and will come back to the meetings for the WASC Committee. And 
I find that very commendable that he does that. 

Also, I find he is -- well, the fact that he has 


a Master's Degree in Education, I think, speaks very highly of 
him, because education and programs, -when I first started in 
Corrections, I was correctional officer at San Quentin for the 
first year-and-a-half or two, and I can always remember being 
asked what I thought about rehabilitation of the inmates. Well, 
my answer back then, and I can still remember it very clear 
today, was I believe in rehabilitation; however, there's not a 
blanket for it, and every inmate has, you know a little 
motivation to press. And I always felt that's very important. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: When were you at San Quentin? 

MR. SANDERS: I started there in '82, and then I 
went to Soledad as a teacher. 


MR. SANDERS: March of '82. And Captain Nelson 
was my interviewer back then. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Was my brother teaching there 
then, Robert Burton? 

MR. SANDERS: Well, I was an officer, so I didn't 
have much to do with education. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Didn't have any truck with 
those teachers then, huh? 

[Laughter . ] 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: He left sometime in '82. 

MR. SANDERS: Probably if I saw him, I would. 

Back to the education issue. I know he's come up 
to the hill several times to talk about situations up there. 
And every time I have ran across him, he's been friendly. He 
takes the time out to listen to what I have to say. and what 


other teachers have to say. And he emphasizes being very 

Finally, what I would like to say is that I think 
he takes the time with line staff, because I am going to talk, 
you know, about support of line staff, and he will spend the 
time, and be personable, and ask what's going on. A lot of 
wardens we never see down the line, but he makes his presence 
shown, and I have a very good feeling. 

There used to be the days where I'd get up and 
want to come to work and teach because we had good programs, 
GED, high school diploma. And there has been days lately in the 
last few years that going to work was just an eight-hour job. 
But I feel that since he's been there, I'm back looking forward 
to, you know, trying to get some of these programs up and going 
again, and with his support, I think we can do that. 

Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Any other witnesses in support? 

Witnesses in opposition? 

I would ask, try not to be too repetitive. 

Go ahead, ma'am. 

MS. THOMAS-VILLARONGA: Thank you. My name is 
Joyce Thomas-Villaronga . I'm actually the CSEA Chapter 
President at Solano, but I'm also a member of the Correctional 
Institutions Committee for CSEA. 

The Correctional Institutions Committee for CSEA, 
representing 13,000 employees in the Department of Corrections, 
is requesting that you reject the confirmation of Tom Carey as 
Warden for CSP Solano. 


You should have received our binder regarding 
some of our issues, explaining our reasoning for opposing his 

We agree, he is a really nice guy, as we 
mentioned before. However, being a nice guy should not be the 
basis for him being confirmed. 

In reference to the response to our binder that 
he also gave, we had a meeting with Mr. Duncan, Deputy Director 
of Institutions, Mr. Carey. And what I stated at that meeting 
with Mr. Duncan and Mr. Carey was that I believe the Internal 
Affairs process, that's part of our issues, it is statewide. 
But we also believe the abuses of the employee investigative and 
disciplinary process happens at the local level, and he should 
be taking responsibility for that. 

We have shown several instances where these 
adverse actions and/or investigations were used in a disparate 
manner, and are written so poorly with a lack of professional 
quality, that they had to be thrown out. 

What we don't understand and have addressed with 
him is why he would allow these highly paid staff to complete 
the quality of work they do, or allow his managers to use the 
investigative process to intimidate and/or retaliate against 
-.- eople with no consequences. 

I'm an office technician with a high school 
aiplcrr.a, getting paid one-third the salary cf the management 
staff that cio these investigations, yet I can do their job 

tter than they car.. If I produced this type of end product, I 
i\ z not have a iob. 


It takes approximately $12,000 to process an 
investigation. This includes the lieutenant or above to 
investigate, the time to interrogate all the witnesses, the. 
office technician to type the documents, review and typing the 
recommendation of penalty by the employee relations officer and 
warden. Then there's also the added expense of once a document 
starts going through the review process by Headquarters staff to 
approve the recommendation, serving the employee the adverse 
action, and the appeals process. It's a wonder that they lose 
43 percent of their cases based on technicalities. With each 
institution having 100-plus investigations on an average per 
year, with only about 15 recommending adverse action, it's a 
wonder we are in a budget deficit. 

Mr. Carey states that the grievances were 
personal. Besides being a chapter president, I am also a 
taxpayer, as are my constituents. We are concerned about the 
budget deficit. We hope that overtime is used for emergent 
needs only. ' Therefore, we don't understand why he would not be 
using the most efficient, expedient, and cost-effective ways to 
keep those costs down. Yet, since his arrival, he's allowed 
retaliation in the assignment of overtime based on union 
leadership, causing excess spending in overtime. 

It seems very suspicious that in one document, 
they state that they can use a higher classification, which is 
much higher than office technician, to do the work of a lower 
classification for a year based on operational need, and in the 
next document state they cannot allow a classification that is 
just a little bit higher to work overtime. This has been an 


issue -- this has never been an issue before, and the only 
classification that was excluded from the overtime happened to 
be office technician, which is the chapter president's 

As far as the issues that started before his 
term, when they were brought to his attention, he failed to 
address them, also leaving them to continue to be left 

We understand and agree that we have a process to 
address these issues. However, that process costs the taxpayers 
money. When the warden allows and condones the continual 
violation of employee rights, this becomes an unnecessary added 
burden to the budget. If he or she is willing to mess with 
employees like this, what are they willing to do to the inmates? 
No wonder we keep having to pay several millions of dollars out 
in lawsuits. 

We have continually requested to be included in 
the decision and policy making process at CSP Solano. The 
Department's Operations Manual states that we will be included. 
However, it appears that that was put in there to have the 
appearance of doing the right thing with no intention of 
enforcing it. Who better to consult with than those who do the 
day-to-day work? They have the most knowledge and can probably 
give you the most efficient and cost-effective way to get the 
- ;c done . 

It is like the re-entry class changes that you 

guys nave a 

asked numerous times about. No one included the 

re-entry teachers, nor was their input -- 


1 SENATOR KARNETTE: Senator Burton, could I ask a 

2 question? 


4 SENATOR KARNETTE: You're talking about 

5 grievances. Are they presented to the warden through your 

6 chapter representative, your union rep? So, don't you negotiate 

7 ' what you're going to talk to him about before you get there? 

8 MS. THOMAS-VILLARONGA: We do what they call an 

9 informal, and then there's a grievance process, yes. 

10 SENATOR KARNETTE: Don't you handle these kind of 

11 issues through that process? 

12 MS. THOMAS-VILLARONGA: Well, you try to, but 

13 normally they're rubber stamped. So, basically what happens is, 

14 there's the expenditure. 

15 SENATOR KARNETTE: As a union member myself, I 

16 was in a union, there's certain processes you go through. 

17 Sometime you win, and sometime you lose. 

18 I'm not saying that's good or bad. I'm just 

19 saying that happens. 

20 So, the grievances you have, I'm sure they're 

21 legitimate. I'm not saying they aren't. But if you're 

22 negotiating this, and you negotiate it, then isn't it over? 

23 MS. THOMAS-VILLARONGA: No, because they just 

24 take the stance that they don't have to abide by it. 

25 SENATOR KARNETTE: Then you just file another 

26 grievance. That's what we did. 

27 MS. THOMAS-VILLARONGA: Yeah, and then you keep 

28 going through this process, and that's a lot of waste of 



SENATOR KARNETTE: But you do have a process. 

MS. THOMAS-VILLARONGA: Correct. But my issue is. 
the waste of money, that we don't need to be wasting based on 
them just denying the process. It's very expensive to do 
grievances on continual basis. If you know how much they pay in 
labor relations, then you'd find out how expensive it is. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Well, so the deal would be, 
every time there's a grievance, they find for the grievor, and 
that way it'll save money? 

MS. THOMAS-VILLARONGA: No, I'm not saying that. 
What I'm saying is that the grievances should not have to happen 
in the levels that they do continually over and over. Same 
grievances, 33 institutions, the same grievances. 

And then we win them at arbitration, and then we 
have start all over again and reinvent the wheel. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: So, your union contract calls 
for arbitration. The grievance goes to arbitration. You win, 
and then what? 

MS. THOMAS-VILLARONGA: Then we end up having to 
do another grievance because somebody else violates it. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Another grievance about the — 

MS. THOMAS-VILLARONGA: Yes, same issue. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: With the same person? 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: You mean the arbitrator finds 
as a matter cf fact that I aggrieved you, then the same — 

MS. THOMAS-VILLARONGA: Let me put it this way. 

In our contract, we have a sick leave 


language, okay? What they'd like to do is use the Unit 6 sick 
leave language on us, which we have two different contracts, but 
because Unit 6 kind of, that's what they teach. They don't 
teach any other contracts, so they just extend everything to us. 
We're not in posted positions or any of that, but they like to 
use that. So, we have to grieve that every time because it's 
the same, in the same institution, over and over again. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I understand the basic thing, 
and we'll bring, when you're finished, somebody from Corrections 

I understand what you're saying now. 

MS. THOMAS -VI LLARONGA: The language is real 
clear . 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: There's a finding that you're 
not Unit 6; you're Unit whatever you are, and then, all of a 
sudden, the same thing happens again with a different employee. 
Instead of saying it the way it should be, as the way the 
arbitrator ruled, you're starting back over? 

MS. THOMAS-VILLARONGA: Correct. The language 
could be real clear, and they still violate it. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I got that. Go ahead. 

MS. THOMAS-VILLARONGA: The re-entry teachers 
that you guys have talked about, the re-entry classes, the last 
few weeks that the inmates are in, no one included the teachers. 
They didn't request their input or anything when they made the 
changes in that. What's on paper and the numbers are all that 
seem to be important. Having an effective program that reduces 
recidivism rates was not a factor. For each inmate kept out of 


the system, it saves the taxpayers approximately -- 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: We understand. 

What workers in the institution do you represent? 

MS. THOMAS-VILLARONGA: Bargaining Unit 1, which 
is your professional, analytical, auditors, that type of thing, 
analysts, teachers. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: So, you represent the teachers. 

MS. THOMAS-VILLARONGA: Teachers. Unit 4, which 
is the clerical. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: You represent analysts; you 
represent -- 


CHAIRMAN BURTON: -- like clerk typists, for want 
of a better word? 

MS. THOMAS-VILLARONGA: Yes. I represent the 
nurses. I represent the dental assistants, the lab people, the 
cooks, everything -- 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: So, you represent everything 
but the people in uniform with guns, so to speak? 

MS. THOMAS-VILLARONGA: And the doctors. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: And the docs. 

MS. THOMAS-VILLARONGA: And the operating 
engineers. I don't do operating engineers either. The 
maintenance people. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Stationary engineers. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: At all the institutions. 

MS. THOMAS-VILLARONGA: At every institution, 
yes. We have very diverse work groups. 


When these issues have been continually brought 
to his attention, and he's done nothing to address them locally 
or prevent the problems, then maybe there needs to be someone in 
that position that will do the right thing. 

We do not have these -- we did not have these 
issues under our previous permanent warden. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: You said they're institution — 


CHAIRMAN BURTON: — they're statewide, so — 

MS. THOMAS-VILLARONGA: . Well, we didn't have 
these issues. I was one of the lucky ones because I had a 
really good permanent warden for quite a few years, Tony 
Newland. We didn't have problems like this, that we seem to be 
experiencing now. I went two years without an adverse action. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: So, there's so many prisons in 
the state, and those prisons had the problem, but under another 
warden, Solano didn't?' 

MS. THOMAS-VILLARONGA: Correct. I think our 
budget was even not in trouble. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Trust me, as sweet as some 
things are, the Correction one hasn't put all the 23 billion in 
the red. 


CHAIRMAN BURTON: Only about 19. 
[Laughter . ] 

MS. THOMAS-VILLARONGA: Well, you know the 
previous warden, it wasn't because we always agreed with each 
other. It was because he did do the right thing. And we were 


allowed to use the process when we disagreed with him without 
any retaliation at all. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Basically, your point, I think 
I understand your point, because the other people that came up 
are saying their relationship with the present warden is like 
your relationship was with the past warden. Didn't always 
agree; the door was open; you could take your shot, and a fair 
thing . 

So basically, the local thousand members, for the 
want of a better word, in your judgment are not getting equal 
treatment with the other employees. 

MS. THOMAS-VILLARONGA: Correct. We have had a 
lot of problems that we've never experienced except in the last 
couple of years. We didn't have these kinds of problems at 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: At that institution. 

MS. THOMAS-VILLARONGA: Yes, but I have been 
president -- 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: But they have been at other 
institutions . 

MS. THOMAS-VILLARONGA: Yes, and I've been 
president since the beginning of time, since we've had chapters, 
at that institution. Since that institution opened, actually. 

Our feeling is that this type of behavior that's 
exemplified and condoned by Mr. Carey, that was what 
necessitated us to have a dignity clause in our contract. And 
that's really sad that we have to have a dignity clause to be 
~ reared with dignity. And we're employees. 


1 So in closing, we request that you not confirm 

2 Tom Carey as a warden. 

3 CHAIRMAN BURTON: Witnesses in opposition with a 

4 a different'-- same stuff? A little bit different. 

5 MS. GOODMAN: She had a lot to say. 

6 CHAIRMAN BURTON: If basically the complaint is 

7 the same, just let us know that you feel the complaint's the 

8 same. If you have some new complaint as opposed to something 

9 anecdotal, I think we get the gist. 

10 MS. GOODMAN: Thank you. 

11 My name is Mari Goodman. I .am the DLC 707 

12 President of CSEA out in Tehachapi Prison. 

13 CHAIRMAN BURTON: He's not at Tehachapi. Oh, he 

14 was at Tehachapi. 

15 MS. GOODMAN: He was at Tehachapi, yes. He 

16 worked with us a few times. 

17 We are here not in support of Mr. Carey's 

18 confirmation. We did have our Labor Management Meetings with 

19 Mr. Carey, but Mr. Carey did monopolize the Labor Management 

20 Meetings' time in there. Sometimes we were in there two to 

21 three hours, listening to some very jovial -- 

22 SENATOR KARNETTE: If you're a union member, you 

23 can interrupt him. 

24 MS. GOODMAN: Pardon me? 

25 SENATOR KARNETTE: I said, you say he monopolizes 

26 it. I'm not saying he didn't. But you can interrupt him. It's 

27 a negotiation -- 

MS. GOODMAN: And we have done that 


SENATOR KARNETTE: And then you can monopolize 
it, like I'm doing right now. Really, that doesn't impress me. 
If you're a good union member, by golly, you can do what have 

MS. GOODMAN: Thank you. 

One of the problems that we have with 
monopolizing that time, though, is that we would give him the 
courtesy and let him have his time back to speak on whatever the 
issues were, but we didn't get the issues that we wanted to 
address done, taken care of. Business wasn't taken care of. 
And then we'd have 20 minutes, and he'd have to go into a 
meeting. So yeah, it was a problem, monopolizing the time. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Again, like her, shame on you 
for letting it happen. 

MS. GOODMAN: And you'll interrupt me and ask me 
a question, and certainly we'll get back to it, but you know 
that you'll allow me to go back to the issues. He would not 
allow that to happen because the issues still happened, and we 
needed to take them on over to the next Labor Management 
Meeting, which would have been a month later. 

What he would prefer to do, probably, and I've 
heard this from other -- 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Now, a Labor Management Meeting 
does what? 

MS. GOODMAN: The Labor Management Meeting -- 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: You don't negotiate contracts 
z riser, by prison; right? 

MS. GOODMAN: Not at all. It's labor — 


1 CHAIRMAN BURTON: Do your contracts allow each 

2 prison to negotiate something? What do you negotiate in them, 

3 unless you're bringing your beefs to them, or what? 

4 "MS. GOODMAN: Actually, when chain of command 

5 doesn't work, we've gone through the chain of command to make a 

6 correction of a particular issue that we have at the work site. 

7 We bring it to his attention. 

8 CHAIRMAN BURTON: It's an individual grievance, 

9 or maybe even like a collective or sectional grievance. 

10 MS. GOODMAN: No, there's processes for all of 

11 that. 

12 When we have an issue, for instance, in our labor 

13 management, when there's an issue that the labor force has a 

14 problem with the management force. 

15 CHAIRMAN BURTON: What kinds? 

16 MS. GOODMAN: Some of the issues may be the 

17 supervision problems that we had. There was one particular 

18 supervisor that was specifically stressing out, harassing people 

19 and so forth. We allowed him the opportunity to work with that 

20 supervisor. 

21 CHAIRMAN BURTON: Job site. 

22 MS. GOODMAN: Job site, work site issues that 

23 we'd like to resolve at the very minimal level so that we 

24 wouldn't have to go into these costly, long-term grievance 

25 process. But it didn't allow for that. 

26 What we did was bring those issues that we could 

27 not resolve at the lowest level, and this is what we discussed 

28 in those meetings. 


CHAIRMAN BURTON: And got unsatisfactory — 

MS. GOODMAN: Well, not only unsatisfactory, but 
many times we were not able to address them because the time was 
taken away. His time is very crucial and very limited, as our 
time was. And that also took 15-16 stewards out of their work 
site area for approximately two to three hours. So, that's why 
that became an issue. 

You know, you can be just so polite, and like I 
said, Mr. Carey is a very jovial person. He gives some 
wonderful stories and can really take some time to talk about 
certain issues that he is interested in, but that Labor 
Management is a contractual meeting that is -- belongs to CSEA; 
should be actually chaired by CSEA, and should be actually 
directed by the CSEA membership. They're the ones with the 
problems . 

In October, 2000, I had requested that Mr. Carey 
be -- remove himself from disciplining any medical disciplinary 
actions due the conflict of interest with his spouse. 
Mrs. Carey was the SRN-II. How she came to that institution, I 
really am not sure on that, because we only have an out-patient 
housing unit; did not require an SRN-II. So, we had a concern 
about why some of these issues he was involved in, in health 
care . 

And I'm going to go on to the second page and 
~i-;e it a little bit easier. 

My position today is based on my interactions 
irey as a representative, well respected at the work 
Z have no personal vendetta. I've never been under any 


investigation. I've never been retaliated. 

Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Are you describing him or you? 

MS. GOODMAN: Thank you, then I'll move on. 

He does not carefully think through his 
decisions. Time after time he did interfere in the business of 
health care services, contrary to what he stated, when he does 
not have all the information. He oversteps his boundaries, 
overlooking the medical specialized knowledge and expertise 
necessary in making sound decisions for this department in 
health care. His judgment is faulty. 

There's disparate treatment favoring custody over 
the health care. The MTAs that left, we had a real problem 
there with the MTAs that left, five in one month, was due to the 
poor the treatment and harassment allowed by Mr. Carey. He 
allowed this to happen. They did bring this to his attention. 
We were down 50 percent of our MTAs. 

So, the constant interference, Mr. Burton, is the 
real issue regarding Mr. Carey's involvement. That constant 
interference, I think, had a motivating factor with the fact 
that his wife was the RN, and I think he was very favorable to 

And I want to just mention this, because I know 
this is a very important thing. It's liability issues where 
tremendous -- the inmates would undoubtedly decompensate, given 
their condition, if he would have opened up the Hemodialysis 
Unit, something that he pushed for three years. 
Hospitalization -- it requires hospitalization. 


1 CHAIRMAN BURTON: Repeat the dialysis thing? 

2 MS. GOODMAN: Thank you. I.'m glad I got your 

3 attention there. 

-; CHAIRMAN BURTON: You had it all the while. 

MS. GOODMAN: That's a very important issue to me 
6 because I work in medical, thank you. . 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: It keeps people alive. 

8 MS. GOODMAN: Thank you. 

9 He pushed the dialysis issue because it would 
mean more nurses, which would lead to more supervising nursing 

11 personnel, thereby justifying -- 

12 CHAIRMAN BURTON: He pushed the dialysis — 

13 MS. GOODMAN: He pushed to have the dialysis unit 

14 be put over at CCI Tehachapi. 

15 CHAIRMAN BURTON: Were there people there in need 

16 of dialysis? 

MS. GOODMAN: There's people all over the state 
18 of California, absolutely. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I understand. That's like a 
guy telling me, people die every day. It's not a good answer. 

21 MS. GOODMAN: Right, but it was inappropriate to 

22 have it over there. 

14 MS. GOODMAN: Because of the distance factor that 

we had 

ana cut 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: That was the only one in the 
They took it from a place like San Quentin and Folsom 
it there? It was a new one, or what? 


MS. GOODMAN: Yeah, it was a brand-new one. It 
would have meant making a lot of changes • — 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Like, he could unilaterally get 
a dialysis thing, and the people at the Department of 
Corrections said, "We could use it somewhere else, but you're a 
hell of a guy. We're putting it in Tehachapi?" 

MS. GOODMAN: No, absolutely not. As a matter of 
fact, it was recommended not, and I'll tell you what the issue 
was . 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Well, the issue to me is, I 
have great difficulty faulting a dialysis machine almost 
anywhere where somebody might need it. 

The other thing would be probably to me, that if 
it's a great distance from other places, it means those in 
Tehachapi who needed dialysis would have to go a great distance 
to get it. 

So, tell me what the problem was on that 
one . 

MS. GOODMAN: The problem was that it was 
inevitable that these patients would decompensate. They were 
not going to be getting the care that would be necessary with a 
dialysis unit. You contract in doctors; you contract in nurses. 
But our existing nursing personnel couldn't handle that. Our 
existing doctors could not handle that. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I understand that. There's not 
enough doctors and nurses, in my judgment, or teachers, in any 
prison in the state. 

So, I'm missing the point of what was wrong with 

moment . 

getting a dialysis machine in Tehachapi. 

MS. GOODMAN: Okay. It was not a functional area 
to have it. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: In your judgment? 

MS. GOODMAN: No, no. Not in my judgment. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: In whose judgment? 

MS. GOODMAN: I'll get right to that in one 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: In somebody's judgment. 

MS. GOODMAN: In Health Services Division's 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: And the Department of 
Corrections was so stupid they put one in there? 

MS. GOODMAN: Actually, the Department of 
Corrections, Health Care Services, actually, were very smart in 
jing out that it was -- it should not go there. 

The point that I — 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Someone put it there. He did 
not say, "I want a dialysis unit." 

MS. GOODMAN: Right. Okay, do you want to go on? 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Yeah, I'd like to. 

MS. GOODMAN: Well, I thought it was really 
important to mention that, and I'll tell you, it was because -- 
■.-.ell, the fact cf the matter is that we need to think about what 
the inmates' care is going to be, and they're not going to get 
i~ properly over there. And I think that the motivation was to 
get more custody staff, more positions, and not give the care to 
those people. If ycu would have saw that program -- 


CHAIRMAN BURTON: I'm starting to feel like John 
Vasconcellos, and I don't want to feel that way. 

[Laughter. ] 


Tell me how getting a dialysis machine gets you 
more prison guards. I'm missing it. Briefly. 

MS. GOODMAN: Briefly, if anyone gets sick, that 
dialysis machine goes down, and they have to transport this 
inmate out -- 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: But you just told me you didn't 
even want a dialysis machine there, so they would have had to 
transfer people anyway. 

MS. GOODMAN: No. If any of those dialysis 
machines go down -- 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Right, but you're saying he was 
wrong for getting one there. And if he didn't get one there, 
they would have been transporting them anyway. 

MS. GOODMAN: No. They would have been 
transferred out to those facilities that gave them that 
treatment . 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: So, they would have been 
totally transferred to another facility? 

MS. GOODMAN: Yeah, that would probably -- most 
likely that would happen. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: If the machine broke down 
there, they'd need more guards to transfer them somewhere else? 

MS. GOODMAN: No, you have a proximity distance. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: You're losing me on this issue. 


MS. GOODMAN: I don't want to lose you on this 


CHAIRMAN BURTON: Well, you're losing me on this 
issue, so why don't you wrap up with another one. It's an 
interesting concept. 

MS. GOODMAN: I thought that we needed to mention 
that because of the liability issues. 

Well, that's how I'll end it up. I just brought 
these points to you. You have the binder, and we had talked 
about the binder before. I responded to Mr. Carey, and I think 
that his motivations and his decisions on many of the issues 
were faulty, and therefore in my opinion, I would not support 
this confirmation. 


How many more in opposition? Three, okay, fine. 

Unless you have something to repeat that's not 
an anecdotal thing, we've got three more wardens, the Governor's 
Reorganization Plan, and four other appointees here. 

Go ahead, sir. 

MR. DICKINSON: I'm not going to repeat anything 
that I've heard so far. 

My name's Terry Dickinson. I'm a Correctional 
Counselor II, CSP Solano. I've worked for the Department of 
Corrections for approximately 20 years. 

I've been Acting Associate Warden at CSP Solano 
for the past seven months. 

Specifically, Mr. Carey has neglected the 
security of the institution. I did submit documentation to you, 


to the top administrators in CDC regarding information that I've 
seen, information that I've heard, or. knowledge, over the past 
year . 

Specifically, the security issues you brought up 
earlier, Senator Burton, had to do with drain lines. I'm sorry 
to hear that the Warden still thinks that the issue is covers on 
drain lines. 

Currently there are three lines that go under the 
electric fence at CSP Solano. Two of them are 42 inches in 
diameter; one of them is a little smaller. Those drain lines go 
under the electric fence from the no-man's land, from the areas 
where inmates walk on a daily basis, to the outside of the 
institution to an exit. At that exit, or at one of those exits, 
there is a cover over the exit with locks on it, two locks. 

There is no security currently that is 
permanently at the front of that institution. Anybody can come 
off the street, off Peabody Road, drive into the institution, 
park in front of that drain line, and be there until somebody 
drives by and wonders why they're there. 

To me, that's significant. Anyone could cut the 
locks off. Anyone could put their own locks on. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: In these drain things, it just 
got built in the last year? 

MR. DICKINSON: No, these came when the 
institution was built. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: But it's never been a problem 
until he got there? 

MR. DICKINSON: Well, I. don't know. I broucht it 


up to Peggy Curran when she was there. I don't know how often 
that she had it checked or searched. 

I did find out -- I brought this up in November 
at a meeting that the Warden was at, and all the executive 
staff. Ms. Crawford did not bring it up. Ms. Crawford brought 
up that life was, we're working in no-man's land, and we got 
them out of no-man's land from working. 

And then, when I found that out, I brought up the 
issue that there are storm drains there, because if they're 
running tractors in this no-man's land, they could have knocked 
off one of the covers to that storm drain and escaped. That's 
when I brought up the issue. 

I said, "Someone needs to check because I know 
there's several of them. I don't know how many." 

The Warden gave direction to Odette Crawford, 
who's the Acting Chief Deputy, to have that checked immediately. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Which warden? This warden? 

MR. DICKINSON: Warden Carey gave the direction 
to have them checked immediately and report back. 


MR. DICKINSON: I don't know what happened. 

About a month later, I thought it was being taken 
care of, because Odette was an Acting Associate Warden over at 
Central Services at the time -- an Associate Warden over at 
Central Services in charge of security investigations. That was 
r unit. So, I didn't know whether it got handled or not until 
her S&I officers came to my office and said, a month 

_ . .•= 

later, ar.o said, "What about these storm drains? .I've been 


assigned to the storm drains." I couldn't believe it -- 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Why -are they asking you? 

MR. DICKINSON: Because I brought the issue up, 
and they sent them to me. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: It sounds kind of stupid to me 
that you brought it up, and so they're asking you as opposed to 
asking the person who's supposed to have done it. 

MR. DICKINSON: I agree. They shouldn't even 
have asked me. That night, everybody should have stayed and 
checked those storm drains, and everybody should have made sure 
there wasn't an escape route. To this day, I don't know what's 
happened with the storm drains. That's one issue. 

Mr. Carey has abused his authority and threatened 
to get back at staff. I'll leave it at that. 

He has inappropriately used overtime to influence 

There is a lack of leadership on his part 
regarding inmate medical access and care. 

He has misused state equipment at the -- misused 
state equipment. 

Mr. Carey has displayed a disregard for the 
classification process. He does not attend institutional 
Classification Committees. 

His lack of interest for the conditions cf 
confinement. You have the documents that I submitted. I'm not 
going to go into detail on each item; you have that. 

I've talked to four different administrators in 
CDC over the oast four weeks. None of them have indicated that 


they would look into or investigate the information that I've 
provided, no one. 

The only issue that they ask is, am I coming to 
the confirmation: 

SENATOR KNIGHT: Who did you ask? 

MR. DICKINSON: Who did I talk to specifically? 

SENATOR KNIGHT: You said you asked four 
different CDC supervisors or what? 

MR. DICKINSON: No, I talked with four different 
administrators within CDC. Do you want to know their names? 


What's that got to do with the Warden here? 

MR. DICKINSON: What's it got to do with the 
Warden, because he's not handling his business at Solano because 
of these issues I'm bringing up. 

So, I tried to bring it to the CDC administration 
to handle it. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: They won't listen to you? 

MR. DICKINSON: Yeah, four people listened to me. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: What did they do? 

MR. DICKINSON: I don't know, because they 
haven't said what they were going to do. That was four weeks 
azo . 

SENATOR KNIGHT: That's not the Warden's fault; 
is 1" ? 

MR. DICKINSON: The issue is, the Warden is not 
being a leaaer at the institution. And therefore, I went to the 
"DC az~.L-r.Lsz raters and informed them cf the issues that I had. 


I was sent to one, another, another, a fourth. 

The final thing I want to say is, whether or not 
you decide to endorse Mr. Carey to be confirmed as a warden. is, 
of course, up to you. 

I'm requesting that an immediate investigation be 
initiated into the information that I provided. That's what I 
want. That's what I think the citizens of this state deserve, 
an investigation into allegations that I present. 


MR. DICKINSON: Every one of them. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: The one where he told the 
Associate Warden to check on the drain pipes -- 

MR. DICKINSON: No, the security. Whether 
there's a security violation right now, today. That one and 
every other one I listed. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I tell what I would suggest, is 
that you send us a letter with one, two, three, that we can 
refer to the Inspector General. 

MR. DICKINSON: I did send that to you, Senator. 
I sent you the whole package. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I know the whole package. I'm 
telling you, send me a letter. 


CHAIRMAN BURTON: Do you know how many packages I 

MR. DICKINSON: No, I don't. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: A shit pot full. 
[Laughter . ] 


CHAIRMAN BURTON: I started off today with very 
bad news. I'm not in a good mood, and these hearings are 
getting me up to a level I cannot stand. It's nobody's fault in 
this room but mine. 

Send a letter, one page, two page, couldn't care 
less, with specific issues to be addressed. And send it to 
Nettie Sabelhaus, and Nettie's right there. 

And the Committee will refer it to Steve White, 
the Inspector General, who will then do that. I'm not sure how 
long it ever takes. He gets back pretty quick. 

But I think some of the issues you raised are 
very serious. And fortunately, at least we haven't read of any 
escapes down there, but if we read of one, something terrible 
happened, we will feel very bad not to be looking into that 

So again, I'm kind of at a loss why all of this 
stuff fell on your shoulders and not somebody else's, but that's 
something that we're going to have the Department of Corrections 
come up after and discuss it. 

Thank you very much. 

MR. DICKINSON: Thank you. 


MR. LONG: Mr. Burton, my name is Robert Long. 
I'm a Correctional Counselor at the California State Prison 

I've worked for CDC about 12-and-a-half years. 
I've worked with lot cf the people that are in this room today. 
I've worked at three different correctional institutions. I 


have extensive knowledge and experience in my field of work. 

By the way, I used vacation time to come here 

The reason that I'm here is because some of the 
unfair, unethical, and possibly illegal hiring practices at CSP 

Mr. Carey has condoned retaliatory acts against 
me that I brought to his attention. I'm under the impression 
they might be being investigated right now. He's presented some 
falsehoods to me. They had to do with the hiring practices and 
thwarted my efforts to promote. 

I believe the Rules Committee has an outline and 
a chronological history that was sent to them. I gave it to 
Ms. Sabelhaus. 

I will not single out Mr. Carey as the only 
individual that condones the unethical hiring practices in CDC. 
However, the fact is that he's had the power to correct the 
wrong doing and has elected to be a passive bystander. 

As a taxpayer and citizen of the State of 
California, I want individuals in office that have moral 
character to say no to their subordinates and superiors when 
they're doing wrong or breaking the law. His condoning of the 
unethical and possibly illegal acts will result in litigation 
against the CDC, and ultimately the taxpayers will have to pay 
the price for them. 

Did you guys receive the outline? 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Yes, thank you. 

Any other witnesses? Are you -standing up to come 


up? Let's get moving. 

Go ahead. . 

MS. STANWICK: Hello, my name is Roberta Lunes 
Stanwick. I work at CCI. I've worked there for 22 years, two 
of the last years as an office technician, and ten years as an 
accounting technician, and ten years prior to that as a medical 
technical assistant. 

I was raised in Tehachapi. I'm here to tell you 
that I do not -- I do not want Mr. Carey to be confirmed as 
Warden. When he was Warden at CCI, he demonstrated unethical 
hiring and promotional practices, discrimination, and harassment 
of certain employees, diverted custody staff for noncustody and 
safety purposes, and demoralized the CCI staff. 

Mr. Carey created a position for a Registered 
Nurse II and hired his wife, Mrs. Carey, for that position. 
That RN-II position was not needed and added additional costs 
and problems to the Medical Department. 

This also created a conflict of interest between 
Mr. Carey, the Medical Department, and the Mental Health 
Services policies, procedures, and staff needs. 

As Warden at CCI, Mr. Carey violated the 
separation between church and state. He created, hired, 
promoted in field positions with fellow members of his local 
church. The hiring and promotional interviews were a sham. The 
positions being filled and employees being hired or promoted 
•.-.•ere pre-selected and were members of his church. 

The employees at CCI were not made aware or 
informed that during Skelley hearings, that the Equal Employment 


Relationship Officer present during the hearings was also a 
member of his church. It is now the opinion of many CCI 
employees that the outcome of the Skelley hearings were pre- 
determined. ' 

An employee who received a reasonable work 
accommodation, I believe, under the Americans with Disabilities 
Act, was ousted from her position and a fellow member of 
Mr. Carey's church was placed in that position. 

As Warden at CCI, Mr. Carey had the limited 
available parking spaces changed to restricted designated 
parking spaces for administrative staff's use in all five 
parking levels. Only administrative staff and their office 
assistants and secretaries were allowed to park in these spaces, 
whether they were absent or not. 

These designated parking spaces further limited 
the available parking for the handicapped, caused rank and file 
staff to walk even further to their work sites, and restricted 
parking to employees conducting state business during second and 
third watch. 

I myself witnessed many verbal confrontations 
between administrative staff and rank and file staff over 
parking spaces. 

Mr. Carey was adamant about the designated 
parking spaces. To make certain that non-designated staff were 
not using these parking spaces, Mr. Carey allowed first, second, 
and third watch outside sergeants to be redirected from their 
custodial duties to observe parking lots and ticket errant 
employees. The correctional officer assigned to collect was 


kept busy researching license plates of rank and file parking 
space offenders. One employee, myself, who continuously 
protested the parking restriction as an American, as a taxpayer,, 
as a citizen -- 


Can't you get that in your contract? We did that 
with the teachers. 


SENATOR KARNETTE: You can't just negotiate 
something about parking spaces? 

MS. STANWICK: No, ma'am. 


MS. STANWICK: You'll have to ask -- 

SENATOR KARNETTE: Well, you can. I bet you, you 

MS. STANWICK: No, I tried. I tried. It has 
only been done with speaking through the Warden personally by 
the other, Brand X Union, who has more members and more money. 

When I protested the parking restrictions, I 
received an adverse action resulting in a five percent decrease 
in pay for six months. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I don't want to deal with 
parking spaces. 

MS. STANWICK: I'm sorry you don't, but this -- I 
w ant to 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Next witness. 

MR. ENNIS: Hello. My name is Jerry Ennis. I'm 
a Ser.icr Radiological Technologist ai California Correctional 


1 Institute. I've been employed there for ten years. 

2 I worked with Mr. and Mrs. Carey for a couple of 

3 years, and they are really nice people. 

4 But we've had problems, and I'd like to -- prior 

5 to hiring Tamsin Carey, Warden Carey's wife, as a Supervising 

6 Registered Nurse II, CCI Medical made several attempts to create 

7 the position. One staff member was handed a memo from 

8 Sacramento addressed to the Health Care Manager which -- 

9 CHAIRMAN BURTON: Slow down. 

10 MR. ENNIS: I'm sorry. I'm nervous. 

11 One staff member was handed a memo from 

12 Sacramento addressed to the Health Care Manager which discussed 

13 the request for the SRN-II position. The memo stated in part, 

14 "Your request is denied. SRN-II positions are assigned to CTCs 

15 and other licensed facilities. CCI is classified as an 

16 out-patient housing unit, OHU, and is not eligible for this 

17 classification in staffing." 

18 Then, that didn't work, so we acted -- they 

19 activated a SHU Unit, Segregated Housing Unit at IV-A, which is 

20 one of the facilities at CCI. When the decision was reached to 

21 activate the IV-A as a Security Housing Unit, SHU, our SRN-I 

22 attended all the pre-activation committee meetings. All other 

23 medical service departments where the workload would be 

24 seriously impacted by the SHU activation were led to believe 

25 that SRN-I -- I won't give her name -- was representing the 

26 entire medical department's staffing needs. 

27 The SRN-I was indeed able to secure five 

28 positions for the medical department. Four were assigned as 


registered nurses, and one medical position was given to mental 
health. Mental health had already received two positions 
through the Coleman SHU package in that activation. 

So then, hiring interviews were scheduled for the 
four RN positions and an SRN-II position. The SRN-II position 
was also tied to SHU activation package; however, it was not 
identified in the original IV-A SHU staffing package. One of 
the RN positions was upgraded to an SRN-II on the local level. 

State Personnel guidelines do not allow funding 
of a Supervising Registered Nurse II for a Security Housing 
Unit. And I have the job specifications here. They have to be 
a licensed facility. 

Hiring interviews were scheduled for the RN 
positions -- sorry. Dr. Liebman, he was the acting Health Care 
Manager at the time, he refused to be a part of the interview 
panel for the SRN-II due to what appeared to be an illegal 
action, the fear of alienation and retaliation by 
administration. He requested that a higher level health care 
administrator be sent to CCI for the interviews. Tom Voss, the 
Regional Administrator, and Vickie Schlone, Correctional Health 
Services Administrator II out of Sacramento, came to CCI, sat on 
the hearing panel, and hired the Warden's wife, Tamsin Carey, as 
the SRN-II. Curtis Madding, the Chief Dental Officer, was 
scheduled to sit on the panel, but at the last minute was 
replaced, and Dr. Liebman did -- sat on the panel. 

Work schedules and hiring justifications for the 
IV-A SHU were submitted by RN supervisors. This appears to be a 
falsification cf the need for RN staff to work in the SHU Unit 


for the expressed purpose of obtaining approval to hire RN staff 
versus MTA staff. The schedules were submitted identifying 
placement of RN staff in the Security Housing Unit. When the 
four RNs were approved for hire, they were all diverted to work 
assignments other than the SHU. 


When this began, I was a relatively young man. I 
wonder if we could kind of synthesize and speed this up. I 
mean, in a sentence or two, you don't like him. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: This is about the process that 
allowed his wife to be hired at the prison? 

MR. ENNIS: Right. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Is it other stuff beyond that, 
or is that basically it? 

MR. ENNIS: There's other stuff beyond that. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: You don't have to read it. 
Just tell us like you're telling a friend. 

MR. ENNIS: Okay. Basically, with the SHU 
package, when you get a SHU package from Sacramento, it's for 
departments that are being impacted by the SHU. That's why you 
gets extra personnel. 


MR. ENNIS: They give us five positions. They 
turned them all into the nurses, and they put them every where 
but the SHU. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: And the whole purpose of that 

MR. ENNIS: Was to get to put RNs in all the 




- ~ 




^ t 

different clinics and start something going with that, which is 
in force still. It's still working. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: And the problem with that is? . 

MR. ENNIS: Is that departments that were getting 
impacted, like laboratory, radiology, the office assistants, the 
MTAs, all the ones who were getting impacted got nothing. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: In other words, it all comes 
out of the money pot for the prison, and if you're hiring excess 
RNs, so to speak, you've got to take it out of somewhere else? 

MR. ENNIS: No. The main part about this, it was 
an illegal action on the Warden's part. You are not to take an 
RN that's to be utilized in the SHU and put them four miles 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Okay. I got it. 

MR. ENNIS: That's what is the bad thing about 
this . 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Now, what I would suggest with 
that, because this is the first time we heard of this specific 
issue, is that we would get that information and refer that 
issue to the State Personnel Board. 

MR. ENNIS: I see. I contacted — before it even 
happened, I went to the Warden to try to fix things. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: No, I was talking about us. 

MR. ENNIS: I already went to the State Personnel 
Board, and they said it's illegal; you can't do that, for me to 
talk to my personnel department. 

I talked to them. They said yes, it is illegal, 
cut "I do what I'm told." 


SENATOR KARNETTE: I thought the Chief Medical 
Officer made those decisions. 

MR. ENNIS: Well, he's supposed to, yeah. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: Then he's the one who's at 
fault; right? 

MR. ENNIS: See, that's another problem we had. 
I talked to the Warden a lot about who's the most powerful. 
Like, they're supposed to be equal, the Warden and the Chief 
Medical Officer, but we all know -- 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: The Chief Medical Officer over 
medical, and the Warden over the custody. 

MR. ENNIS: And they're supposed to be totally 
equal, separate budgets, all that. But we all know that the 
Warden has the upper hand because he can put the Chief Medical 
Officer's face at the front gate, and he will not be able to 
enter the grounds. So, he is more powerful. He's the most 
powerful person in the prison. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: But the State Personnel Board 
said that -- 

MR. ENNIS: They said it was an illegal action, 
that we couldn't do it, for me to talk to my personnel 
department. I talked to them and they said, "Yes, Jerry, it is 
illegal . " 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Okay, and this is something 
that you can't really undo because it's been done? 

MR. ENNIS: Now it's been done. At the time it 
hadn't been done. Now it's too late. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Do you know who you talked to 


at the State Personnel Board? 

MR. ENNIS: Yeah, and I ended up — yeah. It's 
already been done. It's a done deal now. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I understand that, but I mean, 
if somebody allegedly did an illegal act, or whatever it is, 
it'd just be interesting for us to know. 

MR. ENNIS: Well see, this happened in 1998. A 
year later we had the same scenario with the same players. I 
talked to him again, and the same exact thing happened. They 
did the exact same thing. Turned every position into RNs. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I think we'll have our staff 
check that out with the Personnel Board. 

MR. ENNIS: And they put all these positions 
again everywhere but where they were supposed to go. So, it 
doesn't matter. They all knew by then. 

I even got a memo I gave to Warden Carey, which 
he didn't answer, and then fine. I kept bugging him about it, 
and so he gave it to my boss, which was the Health Care Manager, 
and he just writes something about, oh, you don't need another 
x-ray tech. That was his answer. And my questions were not 
even about that at all. I have the memo here that I gave him. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Afterwards why don't we get 
that information. 

MR. ENNIS: Okay. And then that happened again, 
so that's the problem with the SHU package. That really upset 
the entire medical department. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Okay, we got that. 

MR. ENNIS: Okay. 


Now I want to go to the hemodialysis unit just a 
little bit. It's just one paragraph,, and you'll totally 


MR. ENNIS: The Warden has decided that CCI will 
pursue -- 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: We got that. I want to know 
what was wrong with it. 

MR. ENNIS: Okay. Well, the reason why they 
didn't do it was because it was too far away from any city. 
It's like 40 miles. That's why we didn't have -- we did not 
have inmates there at the time that needed dialysis, but we were 
going to ship them in, and they would be housed at the housing 
unit, Level IV, and then we'd have to ship them down two miles 
to a Level II, which is totally against the rules. You're not 
supposed to go down the hill. 

Anyway,' that was the problem with the 
hemodialysis . 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I'm lost. Did he get a 
dialysis machine or didn't he? 

MR. ENNIS: No, we never got one. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Then why the hell were they 
even talking about it? He asked for one and never got it. 

MR. ENNIS: He was trying his best to get one. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I know that. 

MR. ENNIS: To justify -- we felt the reason that 
he wanted the hemodialysis was to justify his wife's position, 
because then we would be a licensed facility if we were a 





















hemodialysis unit. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: There ' d be a cheaper way for 
somebody to get somebody a job than get a dialysis machine, I 

MR. ENNIS: She already had a job. Believe me, 
she was there. Okay. 

Then the AGPA position you've all ready heard 
about that, about the church member. 

Approximately two years -- in 1998, we had eight 
positions. After they all got together and turned all these 
into nurses, we had 20 nurses positions, but nothing had 
changed. We still were an out-patient housing unit, but they 
were using these nurses, which cost more money than an MTA to do 
the jobs where the MTAs are at. But now they're in each level, 
but they're only there on second watch. Like on weekends, 
they're not there. On holidays they're not there. It just 
doesn't make much sense. You know, these nurses just work 
second watch, and they should be there when the physicians 
aren't there. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: So, the reason that the medical 
officer does not have any juice at the prison is that the 
Harden' s able to give him a bum parking space? That's 
overstating it, but I mean, they could put him way down 

MR. ENNIS: They seriously did that. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: It's kind of like Senator 
Karnette said with the union; there's something wrong with the 
cccicr, because the Legislature went" through a lot of trouble to 


separate the medical from custodial. 

MR. ENNIS: See, we had an ombudsman come from 
Sacramento to straighten out some of the problems. She fixed 
the parking' situation. All the doctors each had their own 
parking space at one time, all the physicians. 

Now, the only ones who have them are lieutenants, 
and captains, and wardens, and one's for the CMO. So, things 
aren't right. 

And she was contacted, and they took down a bunch 
of signs, but it's still not the way it's supposed to be. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: If you can close, please. 

MR. ENNIS: Well, at one point in time, he took 
six MTA positions and turned them into officer positions. We 
only had a few MTAs at the time. We were like down 16 MTAs, and 
he turned 6 of them into officers. But then later that was 
reversed because once you turn them, you can't turn them back. 
So, that was reversed.' And that really upset the MTA staff and 
medical staff. 

And then, there for a while we were accepting 
patients in the OHU, which we weren't even supposed to have 
there, you know, like paraplegics, and quads, and nurses was 
hurting their backs, breaking their wrists. But I think they 
were trying to make it into -- anyway, that's it. 

I humbly request your intercession on behalf of 
all the classifications of labor in the State of California to 
deny the confirmation of Warden Carey. 

I've also got a letter from the Inspector 
General, too, over all that. 



More witnesses opposition? 

Is somebody from Corrections here? 

We're going to take a break. 

[Thereupon a brief recess 
was taken. ] 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: The Committee will be back in 

Department Of Corrections. 

MR. TRISTAN: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Senate 
Subcommittee, my name is David Tristan. I am the Chief Deputy 
Director for Field Operations for the Department of Corrections. 

The first thing I'd like to propose in an effort 
to try to resolve the CSEA labor-management issues, is that I 
form a committee, and that that committee be comprised both of 
labor relations people from Sacramento, the Deputy Director's 
Office, and the Regional Administrator's Office, to work with 
CSEA, the Warden and his management team, to try to resolve as 
many of these issues as possible. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Are you going to include 
members of CSEA? 

MR. TRISTAN: Absolutely. They would be meeting, 
and I'm proposing that we do this within the next two weeks, to 
begin to meet. And then we would report all of our solutions, 
resolutions, findings, back to this Committee within a couple of 
months. I think it may take that long. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I think we would want' some kind 
of progress report prior to a couple months. • I think you want 


to — 

MR. TRISTAN: Speed it up.' 


MR. TRISTAN: We'll try to do it as quickly as 
possible, Senator. 

On some of these other issues, I'd like to try to 
address at least some of these for the Committee. 

One is that you were correct, Senator, when you 
said that the Legislature worked very hard on separating the 
custody side of the house, that the warden supervises and 
manages, and the medical side of the house, or Health Care 
Services. The Health Care Services budget is totally separate 
from that of the custody side. We cannot move monies, 
positions, equipment, from one line item to another line item. 

Therefore, if positions were allocated by Health 
Care Services, by Department of Finance for certain kinds of 
functions, the Warden does not have the authority to redirect 
those positions over onto custody side, nor does he have the 
authority to reclass those positions. The Department of Health 
Care Services within the Department of Corrections is the one 
that has that authority, not the Warden. 

The other, in terms of the hiring processes. Our 
hiring processes are totally separate. Health Care Services 
chain of command does their own examining, testing, under the 
Civil Service rules and guidelines. They do their hiring. The 
Warden does not sit on those panels, and the hiring is affected 
by Health Care Services Division. 

The Warden is responsible for -the hiring 


processes and the final authority on the custody, 
classification, business side of the -house, but not the Health 
Care Services side of the house. 

In terms of the issue relative to the drain 
pipes, we have similar storm drains at almost every institution. 
Typically, they are inside the institution, and most of them run 
to some point outside the institution. 

The typical functions which I understand are 
occurring there are that they are either spot-welded shut or 
they have padlocks, security locks, on them. And they're 
checked on a daily basis by the inside patrol, those that are on 
the inside. 

There are logs where the officers have to 
register that they are — have been checked. Then we have the 
outside patrol that also checks the outside storm drains. 

We also have the Administrative Officer of the 
Day that goes around on weekends and takes a look at security 
issues . 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: So, you have the logs of — 

MR. TRISTAN: I don't have them with me. Yes, we 
do have logs. 

In addition to that -- 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: But the logs, do you of your 
own knowledge, have you ever seen the logs of Solano to know 
whether or not they're doing what the SOP is? 

MR. TRISTAN: No, Senator, I have not seen 
those . 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Maybe you want to check ar.d let 


us know. 

MR. TRISTAN: We will -do that, Senator. 

In addition to that, we have security audits. 
They go look at these. They check to make sure that they're in 
compliance with departmental policy, procedures, and these are 
security audits. 

In terms of the some of the other issues that 
were brought before this Committee, is that all of our hiring 
processes are double checked and checked by Headquarters 
personnel, whether it's Health Care Services or on the 
institution sides. And they're supposed to be according to 
Civil Service processes. If an employee feels that they've been 
aggrieved or wronged as a result of the hiring process, there 
are procedures by which they can address that. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Forget the hiring process for a 
minute . 

The one 'thing, and it was the first witness, she 
said -- and I don't know if it was in that prison or whether 
it's system wide -- but whoever did stuff was only familiar with 
the Unit 6 contract and not theirs. And they would go to 
arbitration on a beef. 

The arbitrator would find for them. And the 
very, could be, and these are my words, but maybe the next day 
or the next week there would be the exact same situation that 
would require and interpretation of their contract. Instead of 
following the arbitrator's decision, I can't remember the legal 
term, the decision precedent, they have them start over, and 
they're going through the whole thing. 


If that's a fact, that makes no sense. 

MR. TRISTAN: You're right,. Senator. I can't sit 
here and say that we have not done that. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: She talked about specifically, 
I guess, about this institution. So, if the Warden could 
comment on that. 

MR. TRISTAN: But Senator, if I could just 
address for one second that if there's an arbitor's decision, 
and we violate that arbitor's decision, then that union can take 
us back to court. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Yeah, but they shouldn't have 
to. It seem to me that you're not violating that decision, but 
there's a precedent there that says whatever. 

In other words, it would be like Andy 
Messerschmidt and the other one who got free agency, and then 
all of a sudden that was the rule in baseball, free agency. But 
it'd be like every time somebody wanted their free agency, they 
had to start ' over again. 

I think the point wasn't so much that they were 
violating the arbitrator's decision in that one case, but the 
similar thing comes, and they got to go through the whole 
process . 

I wonder if the Warden could comment on that? 

MR. CAREY: Yes, I can. 

Under my tenure, there has not been an 
arbitration award for CSEA at Solano. 

Ms. Villaronga has filed three grievances with 
her as the representative, and two grievances, her as the 


grievant and as the one to be responded to. Those have all been 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Then it must be a system wide. 
If it hasn't happened there while he was there, then it may be 
some problem somewhere. In fact, I think she did say system. 

But it would just seem something to check on 
because it does take a hell of a lot of time and effort to 
basically, if the arbitrator finds that the contract means 
there's three coffee breaks. The next person who takes three 
coffee breaks shouldn't have to go, whatever it is, shouldn't 
have to go through the whole thing. 

MR. TRISTAN: You're correct, Senator. We can 
take a look at that. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Did you have other stuff? 

MR. TRISTAN: No, Senator, unless the Committee 
or you have questions. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Questions, Members of the 

SENATOR KNIGHT: I think it's been covered. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I'll tell you what. It's the 
pleasure of the Chair, or a suggestion, is that this would be 
moved to the Floor, but would be held there pending, one, a 
report back on the labor relations stuff. Two, to see what the 
State Personnel Board said, whether or not it was a fact. And 
three, to see if we could gets an official thing on the 
Inspector General. 

And for the record, the staff, not that it would 
matter to many, but the staff did go down, and the Inmates 


Council were strongly positive about the work that you've done 
there, which to me means as much as most of this stuff. 

Call the roll on the nomination. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Karnette. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Karnette Aye. Senator Knight. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Knight Aye. Senator Johnson. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Johnson Aye. Senator Burton. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Burton Aye. Four to zero. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Congratulations. 

MR. CAREY: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Silvia Garcia, Calipatria, 
Level IV institution. 

MS. GARCIA: 'Good afternoon, Senator and 
Committee Members. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Where is Calipatria? 

MS. GARCIA: Where is Calipatria? It's 45 miles 
south of the Mexican border [sic], and we're about an hour away 
from the Palm Springs area. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Which county? 

MS. GARCIA: Imperial County, Brawley. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I've been to Brawley. 

MS. GARCIA: Thank you. 

I'm going to keep my introduction short. 

My work experience in the Youth and Correctional 


Agency for the last 20 years and my education have provided me 
with the skills necessary, I believe, to assume the vast 
responsibilities associated with the management of an 
institution: I earned a Bachelor Degree in psychology and urban 
studies from Occidental College, and a Master's Degree in social 
welfare from UCLA. 

Managing an inmate population that includes 1600 
inmates serving life term sentences is a challenging task and 
requires us to try different aspects of programming. Our 
in-cell six-week re-entry program, Life without a Crutch, and 
Straight Life Program has helped us keep the inmate population 
focused on the positive aspects of life. We are in the process 
of implementing a veterans group and a lifer program as well. 

The success of the programs already in place is 
due to the staff's commitment to the task and the passion that 
they have demonstrated for the job that they do. 

It is an honor to have the opportunity to receive 
your consideration for my confirmation as Warden at . Calipatria 
State Prison. 

Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Couple questions. 

You have an in-cell pre-release program? 


CHAIRMAN BURTON: Do you think it's better than 
doing it in a classroom situation? 

MS. GARCIA: The response from the inmates is 
much more positive. The inmate works at his own pace. The 
instructor goes from cell to cell, and we use the institutional 


video program as part of the instructional process. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: And you start, and I think we 
had this with the other one, you start it when prior to release? 

MS. GARCIA: Anywhere from 45 to 60 days prior to 
lowever, we also make it available to the — it's 
ly, we start the process six to nine months, depending 
when the inmate arrives. 

We also make it available to the other inmates as 
So, they can turn on their t.v., and they have access to 
the life curriculum. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: So, let's assume, if it's in 
the cell, they could at least watch a video every night or 
something. Do you have one video, several videos, what? 

MS. GARCIA: Several videos. We have anger 
15 management. We have — 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: The anger management probably 
comes earlier in their incarceration; no? 

MS: GARCIA: We start it early in the 

19 incarceration 

20 CHAIRMAN BURTON: How about like getting ready 
for the world? 

MS. GARCIA: That comes at the latter part. We 
used to have DMV and Social Security come out, but they, based 
on manpower, they don't do that. So, the instructor completes 
the paperwork for the inmate on filling out the Social Security 
application and the DMV, and we mail it. And then, if there's 
any problems, the instructor goes back and checks it. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: How often does the instructor 


see an individual? 

MS. GARCIA: He tries .to see each individual at 
least once a week. He goes from cell to cell. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: And for how long a period of 

MS. GARCIA: Depending on what the inmate's needs 
are . 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Let's assume their needs are 
somebody getting out of prison. 

MS. GARCIA: Anywhere from 30 to 45 minutes. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: How many times? 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: They go back? 

MS. GARCIA: Yes, uh-huh. What we have is four 
facilities where the inmates do not mingle. They are 
stand-alone facilities. So, the instructor will go to Facility 
A and take care of the population there, the in-cell. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: How many instructors do you 
have on that? 

MS. GARCIA: I have one instructor. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Only one in the whole prison? 

MS. GARCIA: For the in-cell, yes. We have one 
backup that provides support for him. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I would think that the most 
important part, in my judgment, of the person's term in prison 
is getting ready to go out, so hopefully they don't come back. 

There's only one person doing that? 

MS. GARCIA: Yes, sir. Right now that is true. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: How many people are getting 



MS. GARCIA: How many people are getting out? 

SENATOR KARNETTE: How many people would be 
getting out, say/ in that however many days you have? Six 
months, how many people would be in the program, roughly? 

MS. GARCIA: Roughly, 30 to 40 people. Since we 
started the program in March of 2000, we have processed about 
170 inmates who have paroled using the re-entry program. That 
does not include the other 100 and some that have already -- 
that have still -- are still participating, even though they 
don't have a current release date. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: What's the classification of 
the person that does this 9 Are they teachers, counselors? 

MS. GARCIA: This one is a teacher right now. 
CHAIRMAN BURTON: And they're usually a teacher 
or counselor; right? 

MS. GARCIA: Teacher is the classification we 
use . 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Not counselors? 

MS. GARCIA: No, sir. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: You'd think they'd have 
counselors. Why are they classified as teachers? 

MS. GARCIA: Because they focus on the 
educational components. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: No, they're trying to focus 
them en getting ready to go out, not who George Washington was. 
Z mean, Z would think that if you're talking anger management, 
if you're talking getting ready to get into the world, that you 


really don't need somebody to teach you math or geography. You 
need somebody that's kind of .skilled .at that. 

MS. GARCIA: Our counselors are more like case 
managers and do not focus on counseling per se. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Then what do they do? 

MS. GARCIA: They process the inmates' caseload, 
schedule them for classification, process their family visiting 
application, and -- 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: They shuffle paper? 

MS. GARCIA: The case managers, yes, sir. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I'm trying to understand, cause 
I think again, the most important thing, if they ain't locked up 
for life, do you want somebody to help these people figure out 
what got them into trouble and what '11 keep them out of trouble. 
And I don't think -- and I don't know whether that's the 
Department or what -- but I don't think the teachers are the 
ones to do that. 

Where is the guy from Corrections? Did he take a 

Doesn't that make sense? The pre-release would 
be more counselors than teachers? 

MR. TRISTAN: That may make sense, Senator; 
however, when the curriculum, pre-release curriculum was 
developed, it was developed along the educational lines. And 
so -- 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Tell me what they educate? 
Anger management's not education. 

MR. TRISTAN: Those are some of the components to 





















2 E 

pre-release that have been added after the fact. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: What does it take to get 
something to make sense? I'm all for school teachers. Like I 
said, my brother taught at Quentin for 20-something years. He 
may or may not have been all right counseling a guy to get out; 
although, I have questions. But he was teaching some of the 
prisoners third and fourth grade level stuff. 

I would think you would need -- that's how we've 
always done it, so that's why we're doing it? 

MR. TRISTAN: No. At some points in our history, 
we have used counselors. More recently in our history, the 
counselors are caseload ratio based for, as Warden Garcia was 
talking about, managing the cases. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: It means like they're shuffling 
papers instead of counseling people. 

MR. TRISTAN: Well, I think -- 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I used to shuffle papers, so 
I'm not against it. 

[Laughter. ] 

MR. TRISTAN: Senator, it's something that we can 
take a look at. However, we need classification positions. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: No, this hearing's gone long 

But I really think that you should take a look, 
because anger management's not something that you learn at state 
college. It's something you learn if you're a psychologist or a 
~arr:5:e and family counselor, or who knows what. You certainly 
need a general secondary or major in mathematics. I don't 

•-Jf-iri t +■ 


know if they teach that, but I think that would just be 
something to take look at. 

MR. TRISTAN: We can certainly take look at it, 
but I know -- 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Thanks. Why don't you just 
stay there in case we have questions. 

You know that the concerns or complaints that the 
supervisors have made. Do you want to comment on them before or 
after they testify? 

MS. GARCIA: I'd like to do it before. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: One is the two deaths? 

MS. GARCIA: The two deaths, one of them was on 
First Watch, and the other one was on Third Watch. 

Whenever we have any medical emergency response, 
we review the process in terms of how quickly we responded, was 
medical care initiated. 

The first death we received, it was a man down 
call. And we' responded to the cell within five minutes. He was 
-- triage started, and he was moved to the central infirmary 
within ten minutes of the call being down. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: What did he die of, heart 

MS. GARCIA: No, there was alcohol intoxication 
and some drug overdose. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Alcohol intoxication and what? 

MS. GARCIA: Drug overdose. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: He was in prison? 

MS. GARCIA: Yes, sir. 


CHAIRMAN BURTON: Did you then have an 
investigation as to how he got the booze and the drugs? 

MS. GARCIA: No, we did not. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Why wouldn't you? You're not 
supposed to have booze and drugs in prison. 

MS. GARCIA: We're not supposed to. We do have a 
random cell search to make sure, especially before holidays or 
release -- 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: No, some guy died of basically 
whiskey and drugs, and nobody says how about an investigation 
maybe to see who is the last guy to talk to this person about 
how it happened? 

MS. GARCIA: We talked to his cell partner, and 
he informed us that they had been drinking inmate-manufactured 
alcohol during the day, and that they stayed in their cell. And 
he didn't think there was any problem, and so — 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: How about the drugs? 

MS. GARCIA: We reviewed his medical chart to 
make sure that there wasn't -- whether he was receiving that 
medication. He was not. We did interview the cell partner. 
The cell partner did not know. We searched the cell and 
couldn't find anything. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: The question to me wouldn't be 
-- obviously there had been drugs in the cell, I guess, if they 
stayed in the cell all day. You were able to verify that; 

rh-t- *5 

MS. GARCIA: Yes, through his cell partner. 
CHAIRMAN BURTON: How about through. your own 


people? You'd take the word of his cell partner? 

MS. GARCIA: No, also.. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Wouldn't somebody know that the 
guy wasn't -- 

MS. GARCIA: Yes, he has a housing unit officer. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: So, he was in his cell every 
day, so we can assume there was booze and drugs in the cell. So 
the question in my mind would have been, unless the stuff was 
left over from a prior occupant, how did the drugs get there? 
Nobody seized upon that as to maybe try to ask anybody. 

MS. GARCIA: Oh, yes. I'm sorry. The 
Investigative Services Unit did conduct a review in terms of 
interviewing his cell partner and people that he had been around 
with to ascertain how the drugs were brought in, and we were not 
able to determine. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: So, the "no" was, you didn't 
find out, not that you didn't look? 

MS. GARCIA: Right, sorry. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Did you bring any family here? 

MS. GARCIA: Yes, I did. I have my husband, 
Omar; my 15-year-old child, Michael; my 12-year-old daughter, 
Cerisse. And my 17-year-old has finals, and he'd rather be here 
but he had to take care of his exams. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: You mean you didn't get him a 
pass to come up? 

MS. GARCIA: I could not get him a pass. I 
believe in education. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Do you have problems getting 


people there because of the location? Is there like Brawley 

2 incentive pay? 

3 MS. GARCIA: You know, when the prison first 
opened, there was" problems in the recruitment. We have really 

5 focused in the last five years -- 

6 CHAIRMAN BURTON: Because there's pretty high 
unemployment in that area anyway; right? 

MS. GARCIA: A lot of people didn't know how to 
9 get a job through the state. It's a long process. 

10 The last stats that we -- because we presented to 

11 the Citizens Advisory group, almost 80 percent of" our hires are 

12 now local, and that's due to a concerted effort from Centinela 
State Prison as well as Calipatria, that we do a lot of focused 

14 recruitment. We go to Children's Fair. We start as young as 

15 sixth grade, because we figure in the long run, they need to be 

16 aware of the careers available. 

17 CHAIRMAN BURTON: What's your lockdown situation? 

18 MS. GARCIA: Right now? 

19 CHAIRMAN BURTON: Generally. 

20 MS. GARCIA: It varies. 

21 CHAIRMAN BURTON: Are you locked down now? 

22 MS. GARCIA: One of my facilities, Facility B, is 
in a modified program. In December there was a murder. We were 
locked down for three days, started bringing them up a little 
bit at a time to ensure that there wouldn't be any 
repercussions . 

2*7 We tried to open them up last week, get the two 

28 groups that were feuding, and it didn't go well. But we'll 


start it again. We're meeting with the MAC of that facility, 
and some of the men on the facility are now willing to talk and 
find out what's going on. 

All the other yards are open. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Do you have any power outages 
down there because of the air conditioning and all that? 


CHAIRMAN BURTON: Self-generating? 

MS. GARCIA: We have a self generator. We have a 
back-up generator. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Johnson. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: I just want to follow-up on 
this question of the investigation that was done. And it may be 
that you just didn't understand the Chairman's question, but I 
understood the question clearly, and I understood your answer to 
be no, implying that you didn't conduct and investigation. 

MS. GARCIA: Any time there's an incident, we 
interview the inmates in the housing units. We look to see when 
they gathered. We talked to people that he hangs around with. 
And we do a fact finding to find out how the drugs -- 

SENATOR JOHNSON: I guess that's not what I'm 
looking for either. In fact, your answer -- and I have nor done 
other than vote to confirm every warden appointed by this 
Governor -- but what went through my mind was, I'll be damned if 
I'm going to vote to confirm someone that has that kind of 
callous response to that. 

Now, I'm asking the follow-up question because I 
want to know if I misunderstood you. Let me tell you, what you 


1 communicated to me was that we went through the motions. 

2 But I didn't see anything that indicated that it 
was upsetting to you that a human being in your prison died' from 
booze that he shouldn't have had and drugs that he shouldn't 

5 have had. 

t MS. GARCIA: I'm sorry. . The loss of any death is 

upsetting. It impacts not only the employees but the inmates as 

8 well and me personally. 

9 But we do review it. We try to determine what 

10 led up to it, how we can learn from it. 

11 So, if I appear callous, that's not the intent. 

12 CHAIRMAN BURTON: Specifically, I think, Senator 

13 Johnson, it was not an understanding, because specifically when 

14 you found out that this person died of drugs and booze, what 

15 steps were taken to see if you could find out? You found out 

16 how he got the booze. They made it themselves, which kind of 

17 asks the question, where did they make it themselves, but we'll 
leave that for a minute. And then, how they got the drugs. 

19 So, you did find out, his cell mate said -- which 

2C should make Senator Polanco happy, double celling — that the 

11 booze was made in prison. 

11 And then what did you do to find out about the 

drugs? As I heard it, you contacted everybody that you know who 

1-. had contact with the deceased recently? 

1: MS. GARCIA: The Investigative Services went out, 

::.:erv:ewed people, tried to ascertain what happened. We looked 
at his medical files. We went to see if there was any other way 
they could have had that controlled drug, and try to determine 


how it happened. And we were not able to determine that. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: They went out, and like the 
investigation was a thorough investigation, a cursory 
investigation, or what? 

MS. GARCIA: I believe it was a pretty thorough 
investigation, Senator. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Did you follow up? The guy 
said, well, we made this; this is in-house whiskey. And you 
followed up on that to find out where the still was, or what? 

MS. GARCIA: It's not a still. What the inmates 
do is, they get food items, and they put it either in the toilet 
or in the trash can in paper bags, and they distill it with 
their socks. So, it's a process that they do inside their cell. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Distill it with what? 

MS. GARCIA: Their socks. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: They ferment? 

MS. GARCIA: They ferment it, yes. 

We do take the alcohol issue serious. We do a 
lot of cell searches to assure that we remove all kinds of 
contraband, especially the alcohol. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Who was the second person that 

MS. GARCIA: The second person was Gogan, and he 
was allegedly murdered by his cell partner. 

And when there is a murder at the institution, 
The Imperial County Homicide Task Force is responsible to do the 
investigation, and it's turned over to them. They come in and 
take over the crime scene, and do the investigation. And then, 


1 if necessary, they ask us to interview the inmates because they 

2 determine whether or not it was by the death of another or 
whether they're going to prosecute the cell partner. 


MS. GARCIA: We're still waiting for the results. 
6 CHAIRMAN BURTON: When did the death happen? 

MS. GARCIA: June of last year. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: So, the Imperial County 
9 Sheriff, I guess, or the police? 

10 MS. GARCIA: It's Imperial -- it's a task force. 

11 It's made up of a variety of people. 

12 CHAIRMAN BURTON: County and city. 

13 MS. GARCIA: Uh-huh. 

14 CHAIRMAN BURTON: And they're still trying to 

15 figure out who the perpetrator is? 

16 MS. GARCIA: Well, the assumption is, the 

17 perpetrator is the cell partner, but they have to submit their 

18 report to whether or not we're going to charge him with a 

19 homicide. 

20 CHAIRMAN BURTON: As opposed to? 

11 MS. GARCIA: The DA is the one who normally files 

22 the charges. 

::- CHAIRMAN BURTON: I know that. So, there was a 

Z-. murder, I guess, a year ago. They have determined, or I don't 

know if you arrest a guy in jail, but they either arrest him or 
figure out it's his cell mate. And the DA's trying to figure 
cut whether or not they're going to charge Murder One, Murder 

1: Two, manslaughter, or what? 


MR. TRISTAN: Normally that's what happens, 
Senator . 

In all of our institutions, outside 
investigators, local law enforcement, does the investigation and 
then refers it over to the district attorney if they feel that 
they have whatever level of charge they want to charge him 
with. In conjunction with the coroner's reports and all the 
other -- and the autopsy, and those kinds of investigations. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: And the prison, I guess, can't, 
or shouldn't -- and this is more idle curiosity than dealing 
with your confirmation -- but while it's being handled by the 
cops, so to speak, the prison itself, can they conduct a 
parallel investigation to see whether there should be, quote, 
"disciplinary action" against somebody, or they're supposed to 
just back off? 

MR. TRISTAN: We can do an administrative 
investigation if we think there's staff misconduct involved. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: No, not staff. I'm talking 
about, assumingly it wasn't a guard. 

MR. TRISTAN: A parallel criminal investigation 
we typically do not do. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: And not even an administrative 
one to see whether they should lose visiting privileges or 

Because if you start asking questions, it could 
compromise the case, I guess. 

MR. TRISTAN: Absolutely, Senator.' 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Johnson. 


SENATOR JOHNSON: No more questions. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Knight. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: You know, I think everybody is 
getting a little confused over here with your answers on the 

But we talked in the office, and I wasn't 
confused at all. I understood that you had an investigation. 


SENATOR KNIGHT: But you tend to stay away from 
the word investigation, and now you've brought in another 
organization that does the investigation. 

But you did do an investigation. 

MS. GARCIA: Yes, sir. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: And I don't know why we're so 
reluctant to say we did an investigation. 

MS. GARCIA: I just misunderstood. I'm sorry. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Karnette. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: I have a question related to 
the curriculum that is set up. As Senator Burton mentioned, why 
a teacher, not a counselor. And you were talking about the 
curriculum that they get, and anger management. 

Who determines what that curriculum is? Who 
decides what happens in a prison, what the teachers teach? How 
does that happen? Who decides and changes it? I'm sure changes 
are necessary. 

MR. TRISTAN: Yes, Senator. The curriculum at an 
institution is decided upon by the Education Department within 
Institutions Division. They develop the statewide curriculum. 


Years ago, when we were looking at the 
curriculum, the cognitive skills model was instituted, so that 
in every class that we were teaching in the Department of 
Corrections, we were dealing with cognitive skills, and we were 
dealing with ethics and life skills as we were teaching reading 
and basic education. 

That curriculum is typically reviewed and 
improved on. There's Curriculum Committees that meet with 
representatives from the institution. We have outside people 
come in.' We have a committee that is comprised of educators and 
former educators from the community that come in and provide us 
counsel. They go out to our prisons, and they take a look at 
our classrooms. They take a look at our curriculum. They take 
a look to see whether or not we're effective in teaching inmates 
the basic reading, writing, math skills. 

We have also have Trade Advisory Committee that 
advises us on which trades are the best trades for employability 
for inmates. And so, we modify our trades programs and update 
our trades program, usually on an annual basis to try to keep up 
with the job markets so that the inmates, when they parole, will 
have more employable skills. 

Those are some of the things that we try to do to 
stay up with the community standards in education. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: The counselor, to get to the 
question about a counselor. Now, what about a person who has a 
credential in counseling? That's not the same, I don't think. 
I think Senator Burton meant a different type of 'counselor. 

Do vou use counselors that have credentials in 


counseling, or what kind of counselors? 

MR. TRISTAN: Our counselors, as the Warden was 
explaining, are more case workers that process the case, in 
terms of the terms of the confinement,' the sentence that the 
inmate got, the social factors, social history, their needs. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: What kind of training do they 
have? What kind of degree? 

MR. TRISTAN: Usually they have a minimum of an 
AA, and some two years of experience in working with -- 

SENATOR KARNETTE: So actually, the teacher has 
more academic training. 

MR. TRISTAN: Absolutely. They have to be 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Witnesses in support. We 
already have Brother Mabry on record in support. 

Are you in support? 

MS. AGUILERA-MARRERO: Yes. Actually, this will 
be the last time 1 come up. I'm also going to speak on behalf 
of the other two as well as Ms. Garcia so I don't have to take 
up any more of your time. I know that we're pressed for it. 

Suzanne Aguilera-Marrero, Sam for short, with the 
Chicano Correctional Workers Association, CCWA. We're in full 
support of Silvia Garcia ' s appointment to Warden. 

She has currently been doing the job for the last 
two years. If you've ever been to -- 

SENATOR JOHNSON: Could you slow down. 


She's been currently working- for the last two 


years in the position of Warden down at Calipat. If you've ever 
been down there, and I heard you talk and say that you have 
been, it's not somewhere where everyone wants to go. However, 
Ms. Garcia has made a commitment to the job to do her best, and 
she has. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: You're in support. 

MS. AGUILERA-MARRERO: Yes, we're in total 
support . 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I have one question. You are 
with whom? 

MS. AGUILERA-MARRERO: The Chicano Correctional 
Workers Association. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: That Association is made up of? 

MS. AGUILERA-MARRERO: Employees with the State 
of California for the Department of Corrections, professional. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I understand that, but which? 

MS. AGUILERA-MARRERO: Correctional officers. 
I'm a Correctional Counselor II. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: We want to get you into the 
pre-release program. 

MS. AGUILERA-MARRERO: Okay, thank you. 
[Laughter . ] 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Next, please. 

MR. POLK: Good afternoon, Senators. I'm Lee 
Polk, Associate Warden at Pelican Bay State Prison. I'm here to 
speak on behalf Silvia, as Acting Warden of Calipatria State 
Prison . 

From May, 1998 to July, 2002, I had the pleasure 


working with Ms. Garcia. During that period of time, I was the 
Supervisor of Correctional Education Programs. I supervised the 
educational programs at the institution and the pre-release 

She was very supportive of my effort of trying to 
turn around a very dysfunctional educational program. The first 
thing I noticed, she was very -- she set very high standards for 
work performance for herself and her subordinates. She 
supported me when I needed to make some tough decisions to 
improve the educational programs, and she was also very equally 
tough on me on my decisions that weren't quite that great. 

In addition, with her stern hand, she would give 
me direction on how to correct my old thought out plans and 
necessary resources to get the job done. As time went on, she 
gained confidence in my ability to do my job and allowed me to 
be a part of her management team. I got to watch her and the 
management team develop action plans to improve the morale, 
develop systems to improve security, checks and balances for 
those security systems, to set expectations for employees' 
performance, to schedule regularly the regular meetings for the 
MAC Committee to hear inmate concerns, and to improve the 
institutional relationship with the community through its 
Citizen Advisory Committee. 

Cal became a place where most employees enjoyed 
the privilege of coming to work everyday. Also, the institution 
frequently does well on security audits, information system 
audits, ar.d peer audits. Calipatria has become a pride of the 
Imperial Valley. 


Ms. Garcia has accomplished these things, along being a loving .wife and a very proud mother of three 
beautiful children. I think the state would benefit greatly by 
appointing Ms. Garcia as the Warden at Calipatria State Prison. 
She has worked very, very hard to be a good Warden. 


MS. TUTT: First of all, I'd like to say thank 
you for giving me this opportunity. My name is Antoinette Tutt. 
I'm an Associate Warden at Ironwood State Prison. 

I worked for Silvia Garcia for four years at 
Calipatria as a facility captain. Having a Level IV institution 
and having a Level IV yard is very difficult because of the 
level of inmates that we deal with. But I found Ms. Garcia to 
be a leader, a task master, and a forthright individual. Didn't 
always agree with her. I took a couple of write-ups from her. 
I was angry about it, but she always gave me an open forum to 
express my opinion. She also gave me the empowerment to do my 

I'm asking the Committee today to empower her. 
This woman has worked three years out there at the institution, 
holding it down. What I got of it when I was there was her 
integrity. Ms. Garcia doesn't carry on just her own integrity. 
She carries on the mission of the Department of Corrections. 
She separates that from running Calipatria. She speaks to her 
employees that we are ambassadors to carry on the good will of 
the safety and security of the public. 

As a taxpayer, I think she has given me my 
money's worth. She has given me my money's worth in the 


operation and the fiduciary handling of the institution. She is 
a trainer. She has been a mentor. She has supported me going 
to school up here at Sacramento State University when I was a 
facility captain at Calipat. That meant I had to fly — 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I was going to say, that's a 
hell of a commute. 

MS. TUTT: It was a hell of a commute. 

She supported me by allowing me to fly back and 
forth twice a week to go to school. Unfortunately, I didn't 
finish because I got promoted and went to Ironwood. But 
Ms. Garcia always took the time to check to see how I'm doing, 
and she developed an MSW Program down there at Calipat. 

It's kind of hard just to sit back and not say 
anything, because I traveled this morning four hours from 
Blythe, caught a plane, spent quite bit of money to get here to 
say how much she meant to me while I was a leader down there at 
Calipat . 

Have there been some problems? Yes. But she is 
one of the wardens that will take it head-on, hold the bull by 
the horns, and see that this institution goes forward. 

I am in support of her as a Warden. I thank her 
for her support for me taking on the presidency down at Blythe 
as President of the Child Abuse Council. She said, since you're 
a social worker, do social work besides your duty as a 
correctional professional. 

I'd like to thank this Committee for the 
opportunity to speak today. And I do support Ms. Garcia. 



MS. BIRD: Honorable Chairman, Committee, I'm 
Cayenne Bird, Director of the UNION, United for No Injustice, 
Oppression or Neglect, 6,000 humanitarians. 

We don't really believe that prisons are a 
solution to crime. In fact, we believe quite the opposite, but 
I testified in 1998 at the warden confirmation hearing of Larry 
Small in opposition. At that time, we were getting suicide 
reports . 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Are you in support? 

MS. BIRD: Yes, support. 

She's come a long way. Complaints have fallen. 
We had guard-run drug rings at that time. We haven't heard any 
of that. I personally think the guards need see-through lunch 
pails, and they need before and after shift changes, because 
when there's drugs in prison, it's guard-related. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: You're in support? 

MS. BIRD: Very much so. 

She's very accessible, and complaints have fallen 
80 percent since she's been there. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: High praise indeed coming from 


Prison . 

MS. BIRD: Yes. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Thank you very much. 

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Burton, my name is John 
I'm the Correctional Food Manager at Calipatria State 

I'm here today as a representative of the 


Calipatria State Prison Employees Association. 

We just want to go on -record as being in support 
of Ms. Garcia and her appointment and confirmation. We've found 
working with Ms. "Garcia over the years, we've found that she is 
a compassionate woman. As we bring issues to her regarding 
other employees, she has opened her doors to us. She's always 
had an open door to us. She has admonished us to always bring 
programs to her that will treat all employees on an equal basis. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: You're here in support? 

MR. MITCHELL: I am in- support. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Thank you, sir. 


MS. GALINDO: Hello, Mr. Burton. 

I am from Holtville, which is in the Imperial 
Valley also. My name -- 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: The birthplace of George E. 
Brown, Jr. Carrot capital of the world. 

MS. GALINDO: You betcha. 

My name is Norma Sierra Galindo. I have served 
as a member of the Citizens Advisory Committee as appointed by 
Supervisor Wally Linegruber since a year ago. 

I am here in support of Warden Garcia, and I'd 
basically like to tell you that I love the see the democratic 
process working here, but it troubles me to see the tail wanting 
to wag the dog so much. 

I think that with Ms. Garcia, what I have 
personally seen, is a person who's going to do something, rather 
than not do something at all. And it reminds me of my dad 


saying, do something even if it's wrong and then take 
responsibility for it. 

She is accessible. She is very high profile- in 
the entire community, and we're looking at five big towns. 
We're looking at places where she doesn't flaunt who she is, but 
anybody who knows who she is, knows that she's there. She's 
very involved. She answers questions from the community. 
Answers telephone calls. Always has an explanation, not always 
the explanation we like to hear. She is a professional, and her 
background, bilingual and bicultural, ■ are truly an asset to that 
particular population. 


MS. GALINDO: I thank you more. 


MS. SWETICH: Hello. My name is Lieutenant 
Thelma Swetich. I'm the Public Information Officer and 
administrative assistant. 

I've been at Calipatria State Prison since 
activation. I've worked with four previous wardens, and I think 
Silvia Garcia is well-qualified, and she displays exceptional 
leadership skills. She has an open door policy. She makes 
sound decisions and has great management skills. 

Also I'd like to say that when a death occurs at 
the prison, besides the investigative process that we do, along 
with that, the other agencies, our Security Investigations team, 
helps get all the evidence together with that team, and then 
it's up to the DA to prosecute. And since we're such a small 
community, it takes a long time to get a prosecution, or for 


them to go up to have a case heard. 

Also, when the family members call regarding the 
death, I take the first call. I talk to the family members 
after they've already been notified. They call several times. 
Ms. Garcia talks to all the family members because, obviously, 
they're distraught. It's a sensitive issue. 

And we have, on one of the deaths that you were 
talking about, one of the -- the father had a -- he has a 
disability, and he doesn't remember that he's talked to her. 
And she handles it very well. She talks to him every time. And 
he's very appreciative. 

I just think that I'm in support for her. I 
think she'd make a great warden, and she's proved that for the 
last two years. 

Thank you. 


MS. GOODMAN: Hello again. My name is Mari 
Goodman. I'm representing the membership over at Ms. Garcia 's 
facility. I'm here it speak on behalf of her confirmation. 

We toured the facility, met with the membership 
who were very favorable to her leadership, which is something 
that they spoke highly of. We met with her and the management 
team and found them approachable, as the membership said that 
they were. 

We are in favor of this confirmation. We wish 
her a lot cf luck. 


Next . 

MR. SANTANA: Good afternoon, Senator. My name 
is Jorge Santana. I'm the Chapter President of the Chicano 
Correctional Workers Association. I'm also a sergeant at ' 
Calipatria State Prison. I've been there for four-and-a-half 
years . 

I'm in support of Ms. Garcia, Ms. Garcia to be a 
Warden. I believe she's highly qualified. She offers something 
to the institution that we needed, stability. 

I heard a few people before me saying that they 
had been reprimanded in one way or another by Ms. Garcia. And I 
was placed under investigation by Ms. Garcia, so I'm glad she 
did -- I mean, not really glad, but it cleared my name. Now, 
whenever people try to challenge my integrity or something,- I 
say, bring it on. She's the one that helped me realize that. 

That's really what I have to add. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Thank you, sir. 


MR. PERAZA: Good afternoon. My name is Octavio 
Peraza. I'm a Community Resources Manager at Calipatria State 
Prison . 

I'm here in support of Silvia Garcia as Warden. 
I have worked with Ms. Garcia since 1998, both as a Chief Deputy 
Warden and as Warden. I am responsible to be the liaison 
between the administration office there at Calipatria State 
Prison and the community. 

I will say that Ms. Garcia does keep me busy. 
She's a hard task master. She expects a lot. Last year, she 
wanted us to start a program where we would introduce 


educational informative tours for school children. She said do 

One year later, we have given over 50 tours to over 1,000 
students in the Imperial Valley. 

She is pushing for a youth diversion program. 
Her belief is that education is foremost. She believes that 
children should have every opportunity to learn and to stay out 
of prison. That's a program that we're working on. 

She believes in school partnerships. We are 
working with different schools. 

Without touching on other things that others have 
already covered, I'd just like to say I am in support of 
Ms. Garcia. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Thank you very much. 

Next, sir. 

MR. DIN: Good afternoon. My name is Ray Din, 
D-i-n. I'm here in support of Silvia Garcia. 

I'm a life-long resident of Imperial Valley. 
I've been there all my life, my family also. And I also worked 
for Silvia Garcia for the last eight years. I'm a Correctional 
Counselor I, paper pusher. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: All right, we got you. What do 
you do. 

[Laughter . ] 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I want you working on this pre- 
Tell me what you do. 

MR. DIN: Well, I have open door policy with my 
We're supposed to have a minimum of four hours a week 
:: :;er. aoor policy, or open line with the inmates., where we can 

~ e — s s s e 

x a _ci 


talk with them. My door is open, one-on-one, all the day long. 

I stay in my building as much as possible. What 
I try to do is, if an inmate has any kind of question, anything, 
even though • it ' s not parts of my work load, I will try to answer 
and direct him to where he can get the information. And we talk 
about self-help and stuff. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: What's your definition of case 
management then? 

MR. DIN: Case management? 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: She's the one that described 
what you people did. I didn't. Or maybe it was the warden 
before. Maybe it's the one last week. 

[Laughter. ] 

MR. DIN: Basically, when an inmate comes into 
the system, we calculate their scores. We see what they're in 
here for. We try to put them in programs that's going to help 
them better, to better them. If their academic levels are 
really low, we try to put them in an educational program that's 
going to help them. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: And you do stick with them as 
far as counseling? 

MR. DIN: Yes, as long as they're in my building. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: We're going to retract for the 
record that paper pushing. 

MR. DIN: Okay, great. 
[Laugher . ] 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: But you're not, counselors are 
not, involved in any part of the pre-release education or 



MR. DIN: .No, I'm not part of that. 
CHAIRMAN BURTON: Don't you think that it makes 

MR. DIN: I think that we could probably play a 
role and be an effective part of that. I truly do. 

We talked about what does it take to be a 
correctional counselor. Well, there's minimal. They have 
minimum qualifications to get in. You know, I've attended 
classes, I've taken courses and completed courses at the 
University of Purdue. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Is there anything you have to 
have, a certain degree, any social work, whatever? 

MR. DIN: No, but you know what? I've been in 
Department of Corrections for only eight years, but my life 
didn't start eight years ago. I was involved with other 
things . 

And I think that when they look at your 
application for this position, they look at the whole picture. 
They see what you bring to the table. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: So, there's no minimum 
educational requirements? 

MR. DIN: Associate of Arts, with four years of 
service as a correctional officer. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Service as a correctional 
cfficer car. rr.ake you a counselor? 

MR. DIN: No, four years, and two years of 
ccllege, completed courses. 


CHAIRMAN BURTON: No necessary training in, 
quote, "counseling" • or something? 

MR. DIN: Well, when you're working four years on 
the line, you get a lot of experience. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I understand that. No, I'm 
taking up time, and it's idle curiosity. 

MR. DIN: Sir and panel, I'm here in support of 
Silvia Garcia. 

And also when I came to the Department, what I 
was doing was, where do you work? I work for the Department of 
Corrections. What do you do? Or I tell them something else. I 
wasn't really proud of the job because we had a lot of 
negativity in the small community. When you bring a maximum 
security prison, where a lot of people are coming through the 
valley to visit, to be incarcerated, or what have you, has a lot 
of negativity to the valley. 

But she's turned that around. I'm very proud to 
say I work for the Department of Corrections as a correctional 
officer . 



MR. COTTIER: I'm a little nervous. This is the 
first time I've done this. 

My name is Charles Cottier. I'm retired from the 
Department of Corrections. I labored diligently in the 
vineyards for 38 years. 

I supervised Ms. Garcia for a period of time. I 
found her to be a hard working individual who. had a thirst for 


knowledge, and the knowledge went beyond just asking 
questions. When she asked me how something worked, where do I 
find the written word that makes it right? 

So, she consistently ma'kes good decisions. 
She's a very assertive individual. Believes that everything 
should be done in accordance with the operational plans and 

I found her to be very fair with inmates when she 
worked for me. I'm a little disappointed in her response to you 
about the investigation thing there, because she didn't tell you 
that administratively, they would have put their Security Unit 
immediately to work, and those that were looked to be involved 
would be removed from the general population, hoping to gain 
some security for those other folks, and that they have an 
ongoing program in terms of searching and ferreting drugs and 
illicit activities. It's not really a matter, gee, somebody got 
killed. Let's call in the county. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: You're in support? 

MR. COTTIER: Yes, I am. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Thank you, sir. 

Other witnesses in support. 

Witnesses in opposition. 

MR. TATUM: Hello. I'm Richard Tatum, President 
of the California Correctional Supervisors Organization. 

Firstly, I'd like to apologize for the lateness 
:f the ir.f ormation I provided this Committee. I did not receive 
that information and ail the things that I needed to do. As I 
indicated many times, we have -- really take this as a serious 


situation here. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: So, you didn't receive the 
information until shortly before you got up here? 

MR. TATUM: Yes, sir, that's true. We just got 
the information. And with it, we do know that a lot of the 
information has been submitted to the Department in regard to 
grievances. We documented that and submitted that in this 
package that we provided to you with it. 

In reaching this, and appearing before this 
Committee, I will say that this is -- in ten years, I've been 
the President of this organization from the day that it 
started. And this is the first time that our organization has 
ever opposed a warden. And not to degrade Ms. Garcia, because I 
think she's a very nice person, and that isn't what we're saying 
here . 

We're saying that she made some bad decisions, 
okay, on dealing with things that we feel got two inmates not 
specifically killed, but could have made -- resulted in possibly 
saving of their life. And you know, we have a real problem with 
that, sir. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: If you would have had the 
staffing that you wanted, five minutes would have been cut to 

MR. TATUM: Probably just a couple of minutes. 
And the reason is, if I can explain that is, this is, as many of 
the people have said there, this is a Level IV facility, which 
I've said in many of these hearings that it's where the bad guys 
are. They put them there because they're a lot of -- they're 


not the best inmates in the world there. 

One of the policies and the procedures of these 
type of facilities does not allow staff to open these doors, 
okay, without a supervisor being there. In this case, the 
cross-coverage policy of the Department of Corrections -- and 
what I speak to in cross-coverage is the fact that when you have 
a position assigned to a position, and you do not fill that 
position and it's vacant, a sergeant from a different area has 
to come forward, and he has to cover maybe one or two other 
positions that he has. 

In this situation, in both these situations, the 
supervisors had to respond from a different area before that 
door -- they do have medical emergencies with it, and we 
certainly understand that. But what happened in this situation 
is, the supervisors had to come over from a different area and 
open the cell door. Because of that, it delayed the emergency 
response in both issues with it. 

And if you look at the incident report -- 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: The first one you said it 
probably would have been from five, to two to three? 

MR. TATUM: Possibly two or three minutes, yes. 

'wo minutes 

As we know, in regards to CPR and other things -- 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I understand. 

And then on the, you could probably call it a 


MR. TATUM: Yes, I would say it's a homicide when 
there's two people locked in a cell. I would say with it, one's 


dead. I would say you've got a pretty good suspect there. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: You. probably ought to get ahold 
of the DA down in Imperial County. 

MR. TATUM: Basically, we as an organization feel 
that Ms. Garcia' s policies in regard to the cross-coverage of 
these positions may not be the reason that these inmates died, 
but they contributed to the fact that possibly on both of them. 

If today she would have read her report, she 
would have saw that they did find marijuana in there with it, 
marijuana in that guy's cell. You talk about drugs. They found 
marijuana with it. And that is related directly into her 
report . 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: It could well be a first if 
somebody died of smoking a joint. 

MR. TATUM: I would think that, and I understand 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I think it was some other drugs 
that probably didn't mix with cabbage and dirty socks. 

The problem is, what? That she understaffed 
supervisors, or doesn't fill slots, or what? 

MR. TATUM: That's exactly it, what happened with 
it when the position, because of the Department's policy now, at 
the 4.5 vacancy rate of it. That means they allow an 
institution to be 4.5 positions vacant of what they were given. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Four point five supervisorial? 

MR. TATUM: Yes. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: And a supervisor is what grade 


MR. TATUM: Sergeant and above. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: And because they are 
supervisory, are they covered by collective bargaining or 

MR. TATUM: No, sir, they're not. 


MR. TATUM: Basically, though, what we're 
indicating here, wind this up with it, I have some other folks 
here that want to speak, but basically, the lack of response 
from her when we filed the grievances She didn't 
appear to care with it. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: You filed a grievance? 

MR. TATUM: Yes, my chapter people filed 
grievances . 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Saying you're under staffed, or 
she's cross -- 

MR. TATUM: Yes, she has cross-coverage, or in 
her situation, leaving vacancies. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Cross-coverage means what? 

MR. TATUM: Cross-coverage basically means that 
when you have a position in, say, two units that you have. One 
of those positions calls in sick. You do not fill that 
position, so that sergeant on the other unit comes over and 
works that unit. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Would you fill it by 
temporarily appointing -- 

MR. TATUM: No, sir. All they have to do is hire 
an overtime position on those, and then you'd- have that position 



CHAIRMAN BURTON: You mean bring in somebody that 
just got off work and pay him time-and-a-half? 

MR. TATUM: Yes, sir. 

With that, like I say, I think that -- 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: What if your budget doesn't 
provide for that? 

MR. TATUM: Well, that's a problem. That's a 
problem for her and the Department. 

But I would think that,, number one, if you had 
two inmates -- possibly deaths of two inmates, and the 
possibility of a wrongful death suit by those inmates' people, 
that I would take another look at that cross-coverage situation. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: Wait, wait, wait. 

Are you alleging that in these two incidents, 
there were staff people missing, and that that's responsible? 
Or are you just here trying to seize on the fact that a couple 
of people died to raise a bitch that you have independent of 

MR. TATUM: No, sir. These are documented in 
reports that I provided to you. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: That's not the question I 

Are you saying that that was a factor in either 
of these deaths? 

MR. TATUM: I said it could be a factor. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: No. If it's documented -- 

MR. TATUM: Yes. 


SENATOR JOHNSON: -- and there are records of 
whether there were a sergeant coming 'in from another unit or 
something, you know, is there any evidence at all? Are you 
alleging that in' the two deaths that was a factor? 

Because if you're not, then what you're doing is 
trying on to take advantage of the two deaths to raise hell 
about something you're unhappy with. 

MR. TATUM: That's not true, sir. 

What I'm saying is, the fact that these positions 
were run vacant. We feel that it was -a contributing factor to 
these because the staff could not get over there in time, okay, 
to possibly with it [sic] . The inmates might have died anyway 
in both situations with it. 

We're not saying that with it, but her policy in 
not filling these positions, okay, could have contributed to do 
the fact that these inmates were not treated in a faster 
manner . 

SENATOR JOHNSON: Not to prolong this, but surely 
these haven't been the only medical emergencies in the prison 
during her tenure. There have been other medical emergencies; 

MR. TATUM: Sure. Medical emergencies happen on 
a regular basis. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: Someone didn't necessarily die 
ir. zr.ese other ones. What kind of response time did they have 

MR. TATUM: Basically it takes five, depending 

:c;r. :r.e -- wna' 

.he nature is, the size of the institution, 


where they're located. How long it takes that supervisor to ge - 
over there to supervise the opening of that door. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: So, are there other witnesses 
in opposition? 

MR. TATUM: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: The gist seems to be that she 
is not filling slots, vacancies in supervisory personnel. And 
there could be, or would be, or were attendant potential 
problems as a result of that, as I understand it. 

MR. BRADEN: My name is Bill Braden. I'm a 
retired correctional lieutenant from Deuel Vocational 
Institution, currently working for CCSO. 

The President just testified to the vacancies 
that are going on in that particular institution. That 
institution's chapter, the Chapter President called me and 
informed me that the vacancies were becoming a problem. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Are there vacancies there in 
the line guy's? 

MR. BRADEN: Not the line guards, but with the 
supervision, the supervisors. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: In other words, there are no 
vacancies there anywhere in that prison? They're up to their 
table of organization in equipment, except for supervisory 
people? They're a full complement of the counselors, the 
teachers, the line guards, the kitchen personnel, the clerical? 

MR. BRADEN: I cannot speak to that, sir. I can 
only speak to the supervisors. 

Based on those complaints, I wrote Warden Garcia 


and requested some documents. She, in turn, eventually gave me 
those documents under Government Code 6250, request for public 

Having reviewed those documents, I've come to a 
couple conclusions. One of them was that she was well beyond 
the 4.9 percent mandate that the Department's under for 
vacancies for supervisors. The percentage was, as I recall, was 
9.8 for lieutenants, and 6.1 for sergeants. 

We feel as an organization that this can create 
some real problems in both security and safety of staff and 
inmates . 

Reviewing the Fair Labor Standards Act sheets, 
which are the sign-in sheets, I noticed an inordinate amount of 
cross-covering, the very issue which you were talking about a 
minute ago. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: May I ask a question. 

The budget, can you use the budget for 
supervisors for filling other positions? 

MS. GARCIA: We didn't have any vacancies, true 
vacancies for sergeants. What we had was about four 
correctional sergeants who were out on extended sick leave. So, 
we couldn't technically fill behind them until we were told that 
they were no longer coming back to work. 

What we tried to do was to fill in with actors, 
officers who met the minimum qualifications to act. At one 
point we didn't have any takers to fill the -- to assume the 
5c~ir.g position. When it became that difficult, then I put a 
:::cle cf the seraeants oositions in a blanket and hired behind 


them, limited term, in an effort to minimize the vacancies. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: So, it wasn't a budgetary 
thing, where you cut down on one to implement another area/, 
okay. You 'explained it. 

MR. BRADEN: Basically, I don't want to waste you 
guys' time. 

CCSO has been monitoring the institutions, and I 
will continue to audit them, in hopes that they will at least 
meet their 4.9 percent mandate of vacancies for supervisors and 
managers . 

We have a position on that, sir. And the 
position that it is dangerous. And having worked in those 
institutions, I haven't worked any particular institution, for 
31 years as a supervisor, I've been called upon many a time to 
cross-cover, not just one position, but maybe two. It puts an 
additional burden on those people to try to maintain the 

'• CHAIRMAN BURTON: Let me ask a question. 

Only the supervisor was trained, are trained, in 
CPR, or are the line guards trained in CPR? 

MR. BRADEN: Having been out of the institution 
for two years, it may be that supervisors are also trained in 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Then what good — I'm just 
trying to get this thing. I can understand it's staffing 
standards. I understand that real well, strong support. I 
voted against taking firemen off cf diesel locomotives. I 
believe three in the cockpit for airline pilots. So, I believe 


in safety staffing standards. 

But the point was made that the two or three 
minutes, you know, give or take, where it took the supervisor to 
get over to the cell where the person Was going through seizure, 
or whatever, with drugs and booze, you know, and that the CPR 
would be quick. 

And then it just dawned on me as we're talking 
that I would assume there was like a line guard, or whatever you 
call them, that was close there, that was the one that said some 
inmate's down, I would assume that there was a guard there that 
probably saw it first. Then they call a supervisor. 

So, I don't know what difference it would have 
made if the supervisor was there to watch the guard give CPR, or 
what the supervisor really would have done? 

MR. BRADEN: Well, as I understand it — 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: And I believe you should have 
the ratios, but I'm just wondering, what would the sup. do? The 
first person on the scene would be doing whatever. 

MR. BRADEN: As I understand it, Senator, the 
supervisor, a sergeant in this particular case, has the key to 
open the door. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: The other guy can't open it? 

MR. BRADEN: The other guy's standing in front of 
it, can't do anything. Our contention is — 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: That explains it. Thank you. 

MR. BRADEN: That's about all I have. Thank you 
very ~:szr. . 

MR. BOREM: It's been a long-day, I. know. I'm 


kind of nervous, so you have to forgive me. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: You are or not? 

MR. BOREM: I am nervous, very nervous. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: That's how they all get me if 
they say they're nervous. Then you've got to be gentle. 
Otherwise, hurry up. 

MR. BOREM: That's right. Hurry up, damn it, 


MR. BOREM: I am the CCSO Chapter President at 
Calipatria State Prison. 


MR. BOREM: I'm sorry. My name is Tim Borem. I 
hold the rank of Correctional Sergeant. 

When we found out Ms. Garcia was going up for 
appointment, I polled all of the correctional supervisors that 
belong to CCSO -- we have about 60 of them -- with the exception 
of three I could not get ahold of, and it was overwhelming not 
to support Ms. Garcia. 

There's a lot of reasons. I have to refer to my 
notes here. Something I learned 14 years ago, when I attended 
the basic Correctional Training Center was, your word is your 
bond. That means if you tell somebody you're going to do 
something, you're expected to do it. If you can't do it, you 
should get back at them and say, something came up; we cannot 
do that. And that still holds true today with supervisors. 

The supervisors work shoulder to shoulder with 
the inmates. We have killers; we have gang members; we have 


rapists; we have men that will never ever go home. So, our word 
is all we have. And that's what we expect from our warden. 

And there's been several times, numerous times, 
the Association has met with the Warden, and we requested 
certain things, and we sat there, and we met and talked. And 
she seems real sincere and concerned, but she says she's going 
to do something, but she never ever acts on it. She even gives 
us specific timeframes that it'll be done by this time, and it's 
never ever done. 

And it's caused a real sour feeling in the mouth, 
sour taste in the mouth of the supervisors. Most recently, for 
a long time after that, after it happened several times, we 
stopped meeting with Ms. Garcia. We recently started meeting 
again with her, and our last meeting was on April 7th. And she 
promised us something would be done by May 8th. Today is June 
5th, and we still have not seen it. 

And it's simple. We just want, on that specific 
thing -- 

SENATOR JOHNSON: Would you mind sharing with us 
what the something was, sort of briefly? 

MR. BOREM: Sure. Actually, there are several 
topics. One is rotation for supervisors on probation. When 
you're newly promoted to a correctional supervisor, you go 
through an one-year probation period. And she has said there 
will be a rotation of the correctional supervisors to provide 
them training, and that they will do four months in one area, 
they will rotate them to another other area and do four months, 
and four months, and four months. 


This does not happen. Some supervisors are in 
their entire job for 14-18 months all through the probation. 
Some supervisors get job changes every month. 

We just want something equitable for all the 
supervisors on that deal. 

Also, the issue arose at one time that the 
supervisors felt we were being disciplined according to the 
Bargaining Unit 6 contract as far as the sick leave policy. And 
Ms. Garcia stated that that would be taken care of. That was 
never done. 

Recently we met, like I was saying, on April 
17th. We wanted a new overtime policy, because the one that's 
in effect now the supervisors are not happy with. And I 
discussed it, and she said she would have the new one signed by 
May 8th. Here it is today, June 5th; that is still not done. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: The parade of everybody who 
works in the prison, including those representing the lower on 
the pay scale and that, where a few said in their praise, I 
mean, do you think she's just got a thing for supervisors, or 
what do you think? 

MR. BOREM: Well, if you're real loyal to her, 
she will treat you real well. And not saying you should not be 
loyal to the Warden -- 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I don't know much about much, 
but members of the Local 10 never appeared to me to be 
bootleggers . 

I mean, what do you think it is? 'I'm serious. 
You're the only ones, and maybe it's because .you all aren't 


covered by collective bargaining or something, but what do you 
think? She's got a beef with supervisors as opposed to, you 
know, you're the same group on the first warden coming up, and 
going, you know, all negative and positive here. 

So, out of curiosity -- 

MR. BOREM: I don't think she has a beef with 
supervisors in general. Actually, I think she is very qualified 
to do the job, and she is capable. 

But she just promises us things, and she never 
acts on them. Let them be her fault or her -- 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: She ought to get back and tell 

MR. BOREM: -- management team's fault. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: She ought to get back to you 
and say, I can't do it. Or, I've got to do it next week because 
I'm doing something else. 

MR. BOREM: Right. That has caused a lot of 
discontent with the supervisors. 

There was one occasion that I met with her over a 
drawing that was posted in a well respected — well respected 
union member's bulletin board. The drawing was of a 
correctional officer. It had a screw going through his chest, 
ar.d it had a name on it of a CCSO person, Captain Diamond, like 
maybe he was killing this person. 

So, I met with Ms. Garcia, me and one other 
correctional sergeant. We went into her office. We closed the 
deer, and we showed discontent for the drawing. 

She said that she understood . our problems, and 


she didn't like the drawing either, but she couldn't order them 
to take it down, which I kind of understood because she didn't 
want to get any kind of rift with the other, more powerful 

But after we left the office, it wasn't but five 
minutes the person we complained had posted the drawing up 
called me at work from his house saying, Ms. Garcia just called 
me at home saying you're complaining, down there complaining and 
crying about the drawing I posted. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Well, she might have called him 
and said, that's kind of an out of line thing; why did you do 
it? Why don't you take it down? 

He interpreted. I mean, she may or may not have 
said you're crying, but she made a call to the guy and says, 
this ain't good for anybody; what's wrong with you; you 
shouldn't be doing this stuff. 

MR. BOREM: Well, it was an issue for weeks prior 
to that, because it was posted for weeks and weeks. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Yeah, but you brought it to her 
attention that day. 

MR. BOREM: Well, it was brought to her attention 
long before that. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: In what form? Because the way 
you've described it, within a matter of minutes after your 
meeting with her on the issue, there had been a conversation. 

You seem to put the spin on the conservation that 
it was like tattling to this person. But an equally reasonable 
interpretation, as Senator Burton says, is that she was 


admonishing him. He didn't like it, and that's why he called 

MR. BOREM: The drawing was posted for at least 
two weeks. 'She was aware of the drawing. It was in public 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I mean, we don't want to pick 
on you, Sergeant. 

MR. BOREM: Right. I understand. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: You made the point that right 
after you left her, or shortly thereafter, you get a call from 
this guy saying, what are you doing? You were talking to 
Warden, blah, blah, blah. 

Senator Johnson's point and mine is, she 
probably, you know, or at least an equal coin-flip 
interpretation is, she's calling the guy and saying, you know, 
the sergeant was in here, and you know that's an out of line 
thing you did, and either what are you doing with it, or take it 
down, or don't do that. 

You know, in other words, trying to admonish him 
that this isn't good for anybody. You know, a small thing like 
that could screw up the whole thing. 

MR. BOREM: We just felt our trust was violated 
because we were talking to her in confidence, and she in turn 
called him at home right after we left the office. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: You talked to her in 
confidence. You wanted her to do something. 

MR. BOREM: Correct. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: So, she did something. 


MR. BOREM: But she didn't have to say we were 
down there complaining about it. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Oh, I see. I mean, I get that. 

But having unfortunately kind of done the same 
thing, and then the person says, for Christ's sake, as we say at 
North Beach, that was with the shirts, you know, I kind of blew 
the whistle. 

But I mean, I don't think she was intentionally 
trying to get -- I don't know what she was thinking, so I can't 
speak, but I mean -- 

SENATOR JOHNSON: Just to belabor the point a 
little, since that seems to be the order of the day in any 
event, in that meeting with the warden, did you and your 
colleague who went in, you emphasized you closed the door. 

Did you ask her to keep this in confidence? 

MR. BOREM: No, I do not believe we did, but when 
she closed the door and invited us into the office, we assumed 
it was in confidence. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: She didn't want the secretary 
to hear it. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: That's a pretty thin thread. 

MR. BOREM: The problem is, in order to lead your 
troops to battle, and sometimes at Calipatria we have to battle, 
we have riots and everything, you have to have the respect and 
trust of your leaders, and the supervisors of Calipatria at this 
point do not. 


The basic thing is that there's like, but there's 



















n - 



: i 

1 5 


a lack of trust and, in some instances, respect for the Warden 
among the supervisory personnel. 

MR. BOREM: To put it in a nut shell, yes. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: That's not good for the 


MR. BOREM: Correct. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Okay, thank you. 

MR. BOREM: You know, she is capable of doing the 


CHAIRMAN BURTON: Okay, thank you. 

Any others? 

I would suggest, free advice is worth what you 
pay for it, as the next person's coming up, is that you ought to 
have a meeting, and this kind of clears the air or muddies it, 
to have a meeting with them because I think it's actually kind 
of better that they're coming out, doing this, than having stuff 
fester . 

I don't know how you run a prison, but it 
wouldn't seem that you need that type of thing. If they think, 
rightly or wrongly, that either your word isn't good, or you 
commit to stuff you can't deliver on and don't get back to them, 
and you could be like me, you don't want to give anybody bad 
news, so you kind of hope it will go away, but I would think 
that a meeting with them, and then it's up to them, but whether 
it's the entire supervisorial staff or a group selected by them 
to clear the air and see what happens is going to stand you in 

Now, what you do about cross-covering, and all 


that stuff, I think those are administrative and maybe budgetary 
matters and other stuff. But if people don't think they can go 
to you and say, this is a problem. You say, I'll get on it. 
And whether -rightly or wrongly, they don't think you do, their 
reality's the perception they have. 

Go ahead, officer. 

MR. MALDONADO: Good afternoon, Committee 
Members. My name is Mike Maldonado. I'm a Correctional 
Lieutenant with the Department of Corrections. 

I was employed by Calipatria State Prison from 
1992 until March of 2001. I come here today -- 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: You're no longer there? 

MR. MALDONADO: No, I am not. 

I drove almost 600 miles to attend today on 
behalf of my brothers and sisters who still remain at Calipatria 
State Prison, officers, supervisors, the like. Some of those 
people could not be here today because of fear of retaliation. 

Some of the things occur. Obviously it's not a 
new thing to have discrepancies with hiring practices. That is 
something that occurs at Calipat. 

Basically, like was mentioned before, loyalty. 
Sometimes the loyalty under the administration of Ms. Garcia 
means more than meeting the minimum qualifications. And that's 
been an over -- a very big factor that has occurred. 

Retaliation is another. Anybody who questions a 
decision that is made by Ms. Garcia, or in any capacity, is 
subject to discrimination, harassment, and retaliation. I have 
seen this in my tenure at Calipatria, and also have been part of 









2 5 


that also. 

Basically my reasoning for being here today, 
because obviously this is not a popular thing to do, to go and 
voice an opposition against a Warden's confirmation in front of 
the public that everybody will hear and see. The word political 
suicide has come up many times, and I understand that. 

But in my beliefs, what's right is right, and 
what's wrong is wrong. Everybody in this room, as well as 
pretty much everybody in this world, they know what's right from 
wrong. They make a decision either to do right or to do wrong. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: We got that, Lieutenant. 

MR. MALDONADO: Okay, I'm sorry. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: What prison are you at now? 

MR. MALDONADO: I'm at Centinela State Prison 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Where is that? 

MR. MALDONADO: It's about 40 miles in the 
opposite direction of Calipat. It's in the Imperial Valley. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Just curious. 

Get the Warden on the phone. 
[Laughter . ] 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Just kidding. 

You're sure a hell of a guy. He told me that. 
[Laughter . ] 

MR. MALDONADO: I'll tell you that in a few 


At any rate -- I'm sorry. I lost my train of 



1 CHAIRMAN BURTON: That she retaliates against 

2 people if they don't agree with her or question her. 

3 MR. MALDONADO: Correct. 

4 Basically, I don't have all the answers, nor 

5 would I try to pretend that I do. But absolutely when these 

6 decisions are made, because as the appointing authority and as 

7 the approving authority, she is ultimately responsible for all 

8 decisions that are made within the confines of that particular 

9 prison. 

10 So, when hiring practices are determined to not 

11 be on the up and up, that does affect everything that occurs 

12 within your prison, as well as your staff members. 

13 Could it keep from creating situations that 

14 occurred? I'm not going to say 100 percent yes or no because I 

15 don't know. Could they have an impact? Absolutely. 

16 Absolutely, which also affects your morale, and that affects the 

17 overall operational implementation of your institution. 

18 ' And with that, I wanted to keep it nice and 

19 short, but basically the question that I would ask myself is, in 

20 a very litigious society that we're in right now, is this the 

21 kind of individual that you want running the prison? 

22 I will leave you with that. Thank you. 
2 3 CHAIRMAN BURTON: Any others? 

24 Would you like to respond, Warden? 

25 MS. GARCIA: On which issue, Senator Burton? 

26 CHAIRMAN BURTON: Well, I think on the issue of 
2? trust, on the issue of retaliation, on the issue of keeping your 
28 word. 


1 I think the thing about whether or not — and 

2 also I think that the vacancies of the supervisory. 

3 First of all, I think you explained to Senator 

4 Karnette why you didn't fill vacancies, although you might want 
to do that briefly, then about the other. 

6 But I think more importantly than what you say is 

going to be what you do. And I think it'd be important for you 
and the prison to have that meeting, after, as I say, the air's 

9 been cleared here, but I think you want to have that meeting. 
If they've got some legitimate beefs, take a look at them. If 

11 they don't, you tell them they don't have any beefs, and then — 

12 MS. GARCIA: Okay. 

13 One of the complaints by CCSO is a February 

14 meeting that he said that the issues were addressed and never 

15 handled. 

16 Our March minutes reveal that of the five issues 

17 that we addressed in February, four were addressed, and one we 

18 agreed to disagree, and we held a -- and he filed a grievance. 

19 And he was supposed to take it to third level. 

20 There have been some delays in some of the 

21 procedures. The overtime procedures for supervisors, because it 

22 involves another component of supervisors under CCPOA, needed to 

23 be reviewed by both parties. We were delayed in implementing 

24 it. We signed it in November, 2001. 

15 But what they failed to notice, we already had a 

procedure in place. Some things you assume that your 
subordinates will handle. I worked very closely with the ERO to 

2£ make sure that if we did not meet our deadline, to let Sergeant 


Borem know why and what the delay was. 

And so, most of our discussions, because he 
worked in in-service training, we saw each other everyday. ' We 
would talk to him about it. This is a problem we're having, and 
we're working on it. It was never meant as neglect. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: So, you disagree with his 
assessment of how it worked? 

MS. GARCIA: In part. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Again, I would strongly 
recommend that when you go back to the prison that you have, as 
soon as possible, which means really very soon, a meeting with 
them, and just lay the stuff out. Because, you know, if part of 
it's a misunderstanding, and then part of it is, which is very 
close to the heart of every labor organization, i.e., staffing 
standards, which means more jobs or more overtime, that's a 
budgetary thing. 

But I would strongly not just recommend but 
almost direct that you have the meeting with him, then what 
comes will come. 

Any other questions, Members of the Committee? 

Call the roll on the nomination. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Karnette. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Karnette Aye. Senator Knight. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Knight Aye. Senator Johnson. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Johnson Aye. . Senator Burton. 






















- - 



: - 

~- — 



SECRETARY WEBB: Burton Aye. Four to zero. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Thank you very much. 

MS. GARCIA: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: George Giurbino, Centinela. 

Do you have family here? 

MR. GIURBINO: Yes, I do. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Why don't you introduce them? 

MR. GIURBINO: I'd like to introduce my wife, 
Linda Giurbino. And although I have three children, they're not 
able to make it here today. They're all participating in final 
exams this week. 


MR. GIURBINO: Good afternoon, Senator Burton, 
and honorable Members of the senate Rules Committee. I'd like 
to thank you for scheduling my appearance before you here today. 

Again, my name is George Giurbino. I'm the 
Warden at Centinela State Prison. 

I began my career with the Department of 
Corrections in 1980 as a correctional officer at the California 
Rehabilitation Center in Norco. During the last 21 years, I've 
promoted from correctional officer to correctional sergeant, to 
correctional lieutenant, to correctional captain, to associate 
warden, to deputy warden, and then to warden where I currently 
am now. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: We have your resume. I just 
want to get to a couple of questions. You seem to have no 


According to our staff, or according to somebody, 
you're like at 192 percent capacity? 

MR. GIURBINO: Correct. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: How does that work? Not too 

MR. GIURBINO: Well, the institution's designed 
intent when the institution was manufactured, it was designed 
for 2,208 inmates. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Right, and now you have 4254. 

MR. GIURBINO: Correct. With the activation of 
the institution, the institution went directly into 
overcrowding, each one of the cells. At 2,208 it was single 
celled. All of our cells, like the other institutions in the 
state, are double celled. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Built for double cells? How 
big's a cell? 

MR. GIURBINO: Nine by six. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Like from you to me? 

MR. GIURBINO: From about me to you in length, 
and about the width of a little bit more than this table. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: And there's two guys in there? 

MR. GIURBINO: Yes, sir. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Do they get on each other's 
nerves pretty good? 

MR. GIURBINO: At times it can occur. By and 
large, we try to let them -- work with them in housing so that 
they are with somebody they feel that they're relatively 
compatible with. 

























1 5 





CHAIRMAN BURTON: I've often wondered if I was in 
prison, whether I'd' want. to have somebody in there with me to 
talk with or be by myself. At that size, I think by myself. 

If you are going to double cell, which you do, 
probably it should be at least double that size, right, if 
you're building a new prison somewhere? 

MR. GIURBINO: I'd probably have to do some 
additional study on the appropriate size. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: We're just kind of palavering 
here . 

MR. GIURBINO: The size appears to accommodate 
them. Certainly the inmates would appreciate additional space. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: So, the bunching up doesn't 
cause a lot of problems? 

MR. GIURBINO: I would say that probably 
overcrowding does tend to cause some degree of tension inside 
the institutions, but -- 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Do you have a lot of problems 
in yours? 

MR. GIURBINO: Normally no. 


Senator Johnson. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: No questions. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Knight. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: No questions. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Witnesses in support, 
briefly. We know who you are, just let us know name, rank, and 
serial number. 


MR. DIN: Ray Din, CCWA, Southern Region VP in 
support. Thank you -very much. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: You were here all day, and you 
haven't talked yet. We'll give you a few more minutes. 

MS. POWERS: Barbara Powers. I'm a Member of the 
Correctional Institution Committee. On behalf of the CSEA 
employees at Centinela, we would like to offer our support for 
Mr. Giurbino's confirmation. 



MR. GARCIA: My name is John A. Garcia. I'm a 
correctional lieutenant at Centinela State Prison. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: And in support? 

MR. GARCIA: I'm in support and the Chapter 
President of CCSO. We're in support. 



MR. TATUM: I am Richard Tatum, State President 
of CCSO, and we support Mr. Giurbino. 

Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Lieutenant, you're in support? 

MR. MALDONADO: I am in support. 


Witnesses in opposition? 

Hearing none, call the roll. 

MR. MALDONADO: I just want to say. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: He ' s a hell of a guy. 

MR. MALDONADO: He ' s a hell of ■ a guy, ar.o anybody 


who knows me that can attest to that -- 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: You know right from wrong. 

MR. MALDONADO: That too. I don't come off with 
those, but he's restored my faith in professionalism, and he 
exudes an honesty that I have only come across on great, rare 
occasions . 

And I do support him fully. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Thank you, Lieutenant. 

Call the roll. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Knight. 



Knight Aye. Senator Johnson. 

Senator Burton. 

Johnson Aye 

SECRETARY WEBB: Burton Aye. Three to zero. 
CHAIRMAN BURTON: Congratulations. 
MR. GIURBINO: Thank you. 

added her Aye vote, making the 
final vote 4-0 for confirmation.] 
CHAIRMAN BURTON: Go ahead, Warden. 
MR. KNOWLES: Senator Burton and Members of the 
Senate Rules Committee, my name is Michael Knowles. 

Thank you for the opportunity to present my 
qualifications as appointed Warden of Mule Creek State Prison in 
the City of lone. 

I've been a Department of Corrections employee 






























for nearly 25 years. I began as a correctional officer, 
promoted throughout . the custodial and administrative ranks in 
several institutions throughout my career, and have been in 
managerial positions for the past 15 years. I've worked at Mule 
Creek State Prison for the past 3 years and was appointed Warden 
in July of 2001. 

Dedicated and experienced staff enable me to 
manage a program oriented institution, where public, staff, and 
inmate safety is a priority. I am proud to be part of the 
ongoing success of Mule creek State Prison. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to be before 




CHAIRMAN BURTON: Do you have any family here? 

MR. KNOWLES: No, sir. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Questions, Members of the 

SENATOR KNIGHT: Do you like your job? 
MR. KNOWLES: Yes, I do. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: I don't have any questions. 
CHAIRMAN BURTON: You're at 213 percent 

MR. KNOWLES: Yes, sir. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Do you have some in the dining 


MR. KNOWLES: In the gym. I've activated all 

three of the gyms I have in the three facilities and have 
inmates in them. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: So, there's no gyms for the 


1 inmates? 

2 MR. KNOWLES: No, sir. 

3 CHAIRMAN BURTON: What does that do to the, shall 

4 we say, tensions" inside the prison? 

MR. KNOWLES: Well, overcrowding creates to the 
6 tension. Most of the inmates adapt pretty well to it, and we 

work with them to make sure that have compatible cell partners. 
B And we're very successful doing at that, but there are occasions 
9 where inmates have difficulty coping with that. 

10 CHAIRMAN BURTON: How long have you been there? 

11 MR. KNOWLES: I've been there for three years. 

12 CHAIRMAN BURTON: So, you went in at 96 percent 

13 interrupted days, and you're down to only 38? I'm talking 

14 lockdowns. 

15 MR. KNOWLES: We have minimal lockdowns, sir. 

16 CHAIRMAN BURTON: But you knocked it down from 96 

17 percent of interrupted days to 38 percent? 

18 MR. KNOWLES: Yes, sir. 

19 CHAIRMAN BURTON: Ninety-six, that's every day 

20 almost. 

21 MR. KNOWLES: That's some form of modified 

22 program at the institution, yes. We've been very successful. 

23 We're program oriented. We've been so successful in operating 
L-. the institution without lockdowns that -- 

25 CHAIRMAN BURTON: Well, I would suggest that 

maybe you put down on paper whatever you've been doing and get 
it to Corrections to get it to the other institutions, unless 
the only ceccle you have are perty thieves and bookmakers. 


MR. KNOWLES: No, sir. We're a Level IV and 

Level III institution. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: And I'm very serious about, 
that, that whatever 's worked for you, you ought to let the other 
ones know because that's a dramatic decrease. 

MR. KNOWLES: Yes, sir. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Witnesses in support. All 
right . 

MR. TATUM: Richard Tatum, State President of the 
California Correctional Supervisors. 

Just a short statement. I have known Mr. Knowles 
since he was a sergeant for me in 1981. I was a lieutenant. 
And he was same individual then that he is now. He's an 
employee that's worked his way up from the bottom all the way 
through and has the experience of many years as a supervisor, 
and understands what supervisors go through. 

With that, our organization supports him fully. 

MS. POWERS: Barbara Powers. I am the DLC 
President for the prison that Mr. Knowles runs. I am also a 
member of the Correctional Institution Committee for CSEA, which 
is a statewide committee. 

I presented a very, very brief statement to your 
Committee . 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: We've got that as part of the 

MS. POWERS: And what I did not include in the 
statement that I wanted to emphasize is that what I have seen 















; - 

today, that there has been a lot of concern over people's 
integrity and their veracity. 

I wanted to say that this is one of the first 
wardens that I've had that I have not had to ever question any 
information that he has told me. We have come to an agreement 
that maybe there is information that he will not share, but he 
doesn't tell me inappropriate information, and I appreciate it 
very much. 

On behalf of my employees at the institution, we 
support the confirmation of Mr. Knowles. 



MS. CAMPBELL: Hi. I'm Sandi Campbell. I'm 
Chapter President at Mule Creek State Prison's California 
Correctional Peace Officers, and I am here in support of 
Mr. Knowles for Warden at Mule Creek State Prison. 

And since he's been there, it's been an absolute 
pleasure. I want to keep it short, because we are getting short 
on time. 

Thank you. 


Witness in opposition, briefly. 

MS. BIRD: Wouldn't you like to hear opposition 
a.z 10 til 5? I'll be brief. 

I've put out a 20-page report of complaints, 
summarized from 89 inmates at the web site, and it was submitted 

to you sometime ago. 


'hat's oart of the record 


MS. BIRD: Okay. 

I really don't know what I -could say to you that 
would make you not confirm Mr. Knowles, but the UNION opposes 
his appointment. 

I spent the entire day yesterday going through 
piles of complaints that put me in absolute grief. Just as 
you're frustrated, I'm in grief from what's happening at that 

Yes, they do not have lockdowns in the same 
manner that High Desert, and Pelican Bay, and Landcaster have 
them, but they leave people in lockdown inordinate amount of 
time by doing things like fog alerts that go on for most of the 
day. They just never take the inmates out of their cells, and 
they're not allowed to program or shower, or do whatever. They 
put them in there whenever the heat-sensitive inmates have to 
come in and be counted, then all of the inmates have to be 

But really, when we just get to the most 
important aspects of this, there are lawsuits that have been 
filed, a lot more that are going to be filed, over medical 
neglect. It's the cruelest form of murder. I have stories that 
would make God Himself cry. I've been covering this in my 
newsletter for sometime, and I'm going to be covering it even 
more . 

In the gymnasium, there's -- 

SENATOR JOHNSON: Ma'am, you know, I did have an 
occasion, although I don't use computers, to see some of the 
material that you put on your website about your appearance 


before this Committee previously. And your characterizations of 
what occurred in that meeting, and your characterizations of a 
Member of this Committee, Senator Knight, were so wildly off 
base, and I was here. 

So, my question is, why in the world should I or 
other Members of this Committee take your general accusations 
seriously, when one event that you reported that I was present 
for was so totally wrong? 

MS. BIRD: Each one of us experiences different 

And you're one of the people who voted against 
amending the Three Strikes law when these conveyer belt laws 
have filled the -- 

SENATOR JOHNSON: Yes, I did, and I co-authored 
the Three Strikes law. I also happen to be an individual that 
one of the first bills I introduced when I was elected to the 
Legislature was to prohibit double celling, to have one prisoner 
to a cell. 

So, don't come up here and start attacking me. 

The question was, why in the world, when the only 
thing that you've reported on that I was personally witness to, 
you were not only wrong, you were totally wrong. 

MS. BIRD: Well, that's your perspective. But 
that's not my perspective. 

And anyone who would vote against amending the 
Three Strikes law, knowing that people are dying -- 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Let me just say this. 

If the Legislature had had the wisdom to pass the 


Three Strikes bill that Senator Johnson had, which was three 
violent felonies, nobody would be having much of a beef about 
the issue. 

MS. BIRD: But he didn't change his mind, even 
knowing that -- 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I know that, but let's stay on 
with this. 

I'll tell you something, ma'am, I've heard you 
testify on every warden, and my heart almost was overflowing 
with admiration when you came up in support of the warden today. 
But we've got to get to specifically, and we have what you have 
on the website, and the staff has thoroughly reviewed that. 

But just your specifics to the Warden here before 
us, and we don't want -- 

MS. BIRD: All right. 

In the gymnasium, they're stacked three bunks 
high. They're 18 inches apart. 

' CHAIRMAN BURTON: They are 200 percent -- they're 
overcrowded. He didn't do it. 

MS. BIRD: But he puts up with it. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: He could resign the job. 

MS. BIRD: It's illegal. There's dangerous 
conditions in there. He could stand up and say, "I resign the 
job because these are inhumane conditions, and I refuse to 
subject human beings to this kind of treatment." He could. 

But that would take a person of character to 
stand up and say this is wrong. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: And probably a person very 


close to retirement. 

[Laughter. ] 
MS. BIRD: To me, it's not funny because I ! 'm 
reading these heart-breaking situations. A person died there a 
couple weeks ago in the mentally -- he was a mentally ill. He 
was a young man. He started seizing. The guards took him out 
on the concrete. They left him for 27 minutes, seizing, because 
they couldn't pick him up and carry him through a narrow gate. 
He was just a few feet from the clinic. His name was Glen Horn. 
He is dead. He didn't get his vitals checked. He didn't get 
emergency medical care. It's nonexistent there. 

And I have all kinds of files that I'm very 
willing to share with you. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I think, again, it's better 
shared with the Department of Corrections. 

MS. BIRD: I did have my meeting with them. . 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Did you meet with Senator 

MS. BIRD: Yes, I did. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: How did that go? 

MS. BIRD: I felt that he was compassionate; 
however, the other people at the meeting just had a lot of spin 
and excuses. They didn't really want to fix anything, change 
anything . 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Mike, she has some information 
about the conditions at Mule Creek and some other prisons, but 
specifically that. And I think that would be very helpful. 

And I'm glad the meeting with Senator .Presley, at 


1 least he did show some compassion. 

2 MS. BIRD: He did show compassion. But again, 

3 I've been fighting these battles for years, and nothing ever 

4 happens, nothing ever gets resolved. 

5 CHAIRMAN BURTON: Well, he's the man who can do 

6 it. He's the Secretary of the Agency.-. 

7 MS. BIRD: Well, he didn't give me any indication 

8 that he was going to fix anything, and there is no other meeting 

9 scheduled. 

10 There seems to always be just an excuse. 

11 CHAIRMAN BURTON: Can you get another meeting 

12 with the Senator for her? 

13 MS. BIRD: Well, only if it's to tell me what's 

14 going to be done. Sympathy is good, but it's not reform. 

15 CHAIRMAN BURTON: No, with a direction to 

16 respond. 

17 Thank you. 

18 '• MS. BIRD: Thank you. 

19 Anyway, we definitely oppose. 

20 CHAIRMAN BURTON: Any other witnesses in 

21 opposition? Hearing none, call the roll. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Karnette. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Karnette Aye. Senator Knight. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Knight Aye. Senator Johnson. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Johnson Aye. Senator Burton. 











SECRETARY WEBB: Burton Aye.. Four to zero. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Congratulations. 

MR. KNOWLES: Thank you; Senator. 

[Thereupon this portion of the 

Senate Rules Committee hearing 

was terminated at approximately. 

5:12 P.M. ] 



£ ■: 

: ; 



I, EVELYN J. MIZAK, a Shorthand Reporter of the State 
of California, do hereby certify: 

That I am a disinterested person herein; that the 
foregoing transcript of the Senate Rules Committee hearing was 
reported verbatim in shorthand by me, Evelyn J. Mizak, and 
thereafter transcribed into typewriting. 

I further certify that I am not of counsel or 
attorney for any of the parties to said hearing, nor in any way 
interested in the outcome of said hearing. 

~ IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 

day of 

, 2002 

-at -i. i^ 

Shorthand Reporter 

I am B Cayenne Bird, United for No Injustice, Oppression or Neglect, UNION Director 
speaking on behalf of 6000 individuals and groups in opposition to the confirmation of 

Mule Creek Warden Michael Knowles. 

If I give voice to the voiceless, those in our society who have been devastated by overly 
harsh, conveyor belt laws it is because they are being ignored by you. Why else would 
anyone vote against Amending the 3X law when it is common knowledge throughout 
the world that California cannot properly care for prisoners? 

What voice could I use to convince you that Knowles is unfit for the job? Should I shout 
to express the anguish that I feel over conditions that would make God himself cry? 
Would you believe the documented evidence that Knowles practices the cruelest form 

of murder - medical neglect? 

Would having each of you spend one night in the gymnasium stacked 3 bunks high with 
beds just 18" apart with toxic, disease-ridden air quality cause you to raise an 
eyebrow? It might be uncomfortable for you to sit on a toilet just 12" from another man 
with no privacy - IF you can get a toilet with 160 mostly very ill inmates vying for only ten 
seats. And, we must remember that the symptoms of rampant Hep C include diarhhea. 

But there is no respect for sanitation and disease at Mule Creek. Knowles allows 
inmates infected by Hep C to work in the kitchen, use their hands to serve food. These 
hands may be gloved at times, but their forearms and up to their elbows when mixing 
certain foods are not covered and they have no soap and water in the bathrooms most 

of the time. 

Just what voice does one use to object to a system and its wardens who commit crimes 
against humanity with no conscience? Would crying, yelling, taking my usual business- 
like tone make one bit of difference to you? 

These conditions are reality. A summary of 89 complaints is posted at our website for 
anyone who really wants to know the details of what is happening at Mule Creek and 
most other prisons in the name of justice statewide. 

Michael Knowles will prove to be the most expensive warden that you've ever hired with 
the number of lawsuits already filed against him and many of the guards he empowers 
with his own made up rules. There is no respect for Title 15 at Mule Creek State 
Prison. The UNION does not believe that psychological torture by the thugs and bullies 
he allows to do as they please is corrective or rehabilitative in any way. 

He conned the MAC Committee into writing a letter of endorsement, dangling the carrot 
that he would correct most of the 89 complaints. As of yesterday, he had corrected none 
of these complaints and the MAC Committee feels used and tricked by a man whose 

word holds no merit. 

I was overwhelmed with grief after spending an entire day trying to figure out how to 
summarize the extreme cases of abuse in my files. Each time I thought I had set aside 
the worst cases an even more shocking one popped up in the pile. My father, 
grandfather, and son were all Veterans, and I have spent my entire life being a patriot 
through three decades of journalism. I can tell you right now that the atrocities 
happening as business as usual at Mule Creek Prison and most of the other prisons in 

the State is the opposite of what my ancestors wanted to see happening in the name of 
justice and liberty. There are too many people in prison. It is unAmerican, unchristian 
to cage and not take care of people's basic needs, to destroy tens of thousands of 
connected families over crimes that aren't really crimes. 

A legislature is simply a collection of people paid to represent special interests, using 
government to impose their will on everyone else. I have plenty of details on blatant 
medical neglect, severe psychological intimidation, inhumane and illegal conditions and 
much, much more. Just recently a young mentally ill man was allowed to seize 27 
minutes on the cold concrete with no first aid, no checking of his vital signs, plenty of 
monkeys standing around scratching their heads instead of carrying him 100 feet to the 
prison infirmary. The other inmates are still traumatized over this, but there are no first 
aid classes scheduled for guards as a result of this needless death. This is business as 
usual at Mule Creek and most other prisons. 

All I can do is wonder just what circumstance would result in firing someone as 
unbearably incompetent and callous as Michael Knowles? Either you don't believe me 
or you just don't care, either way I predict a flurry of lawsuits as the price that should be 
added to his annual salary. 

The costs in both monetary and human terms will be great and could easily be 
prevented by your denial of his confirmation now. Thank you for allowing me to speak 
on behalf of suffering and dying inmates and their families. 

Today is the Confirmation Hearing for Warden Michael Knowles of Mule Creek State 
Prison. It took an entire day yesterday to go through many files of complaints. A 
statement won't be easy to prepare because everything is wrong, people are dead and 
dying and nobody in charges gives a rat's behind. 

In addition to these "reminders" of negligence at Mule Creek, there is a summary of 89 
complaints which describes systemic dysfunction at all California State Prisons. One 
would need only to change the name of the prison and 99% of these conditions would 
still apply. 

Is it any wonder that people are being returned to their communities sicker than before 
they were incarcerated? 

These complaints DID get posted last night and are very, very worthwhile reading for 
everyone who wonders what really goes on in the darkness behind the walls. It was 
written a great personal risk by my precious loved one, Eric Knapp, who before 
experiencing a great injustice that destroyed his life at age 25, was an Army medical 
specialist, paramedic and military policeman with many years of service to our country. 

He is a source that I trust implicity, and has suffered and is now suffering retaliation and 
abuse for reporting Mule Creek's inner workings. He too, has filed a lawsuit, against 
Knowles and the guards who are allowed to harass him on a daily basis. Inmate filed 
lawsuits rarely win, but without them, nothing gets recognized, not to mention 

resolved There is no resolution. ...The only hope for resolution is for a citizen's group 

to form of such a size that the bums who allow this inhumanity can be voted out of office 
and 70% of the prison human bondage industry halted. 6500 WORKERS - key word 

WORKERS - can change any law, and end the reign of tin gods who are destroying 
tens of thousands of families who are sitting by and allowing them to 
do so. 

B. Cayenne Bird 

Remember this complaint from 12/20 which appeared in our newsletter? It took months 
to get the first appointment even though Thomas Lee's thumb is graphically swollen ten 
times larger than anyone elses'. The San Francisco doctor tried contacting the prison to 
advocate on his behalf for a second doctor's appointment but was ignored. A habeas 
has been filed and I'm showing this case to lawyers, knowing that Thomas Lee has 
three small children, a short sentence (he shouldn't even be in prison - a jury didn't put 
him there). 

I appealed to Dr. Vismara in Senator Burton's office who visited Thomas Lee at Mule 
Creek State Prison several months ago for help. The inmates were told by the guards 

not to speak to anyone from the legislature about their problems "or else " Thomas 

Lee could say nothing to Dr. Vismara but did manage to get desperate correspondence 
to me. 

I communicated to Dr. Vismara that Thomas Lee was unable to speak to him without 
severe retribution. In spite of a very obvious need for medical care above the prison 
clinic level, I was told there was a new Chief Medical Officer at Mule Creek who was "on 
it" and that I could voice my concerns there. This is a very serious, life threatening, 
blatant case of medical neglect. I can see that some time of lawsuit has been filed, but I 
am hopeful that an excellent attorney will surface and take this one ALL THE WAY. 

After more than a year of begging for medical help, documented proof that the prison 
knew of his condition at the time of his incarceration and refused to treat him, a lawsuit 
appears to be the only way he wHI ever get appropriate medical care. 

The growths moved into his neck, popped up in large lumps around his spine and he 
can barely walk. All because a simple routine surgery on his thumb, which he has 
required all his life, was callously denied even after repeated requests to Knowles and 
the doctors. 

I hope it happens, that everyone who ignored this plea is named in this lawsuit and held 
personally liable. 

This neglect is very well documented every step of the way. Lee is in prison with a four 
year sentence because a mentally ill woman who wanted his apartment planted a child's 
firecracker in clay and put it in her ice chest. 

This is the most insane situation and what's worse, the DA convinced him to plea 
bargain. Now his life is in danger and there is no help for him. 

And to think, Mule Creek is their "model" prison. I have the blood curdling medical 
neglect complaints out of there but was told by Senator Burton's Dr. Vismara to "deal 
directly with the new CMO." 
I have found dealing with CMO's to be a waste of breath statewide. Pass the buck, 


transfer the call, the bureaucrats cannot remedy medical emergencies. They just say 
"No" maybe this person can help you. 

Lawsuits naming individuals from the MTA on up to the President of the United States 
and pickets will be the only way to end the callousness around the cruelest form of 
murder - medical neglect. 

Any sentence to prison is a potential death sentence. Just ask Thomas Lee and the 
family of dead inmate Glen Horn (report follows) 

B. Cayenne Bird 

Here's the excerpt from our newsletter 12/21 . As far as I know, Lee has yet to get a 
second opinion. 

Dear Cayenne: 

A Christian Brother has a serious life threatening medical problem and is in need of 
special prayer by you and anyone else who cares. You already know of him and the 
sad tale of CDC's intentional indifference to his medical needs. His name is Thomas 
Lee P76292 

First I will give you some history on him that will tell you something about his condition. 
From either birth or a very early age he was diagnosed with what has been nicknamed 
Elephantitise, due to the movie Hunch Back of Notre Dame, that is the disease that 
killed him. I can't pronounce the medical name, it is a long word and ends with 
Thrombosis?????something or other. 

All his life every so often he has had to have surgery on his thumb as this is where the 
original tumor is located. They cut the roots and it is okay for some odd years and then 
they must do it again or it will spread up his arm and throughout his body and eventually 
kill him. Therefore, due to his LARGE THUMB (about ten times the size of the thumb 
on his other hand) he has been nicknamed "Tom Thumb". 

He is a family man, he has a wife named Michelle and three beautiful babies whom he 
dearly loves. Two little girls and a little boy. This week he received divorce papers and 
it ROCKED his world. 

Since Tom got here he has tried unsuccessfully to get the MANDATORY treatment he 
needs to STOP the spread of this tumor (cut the roots in the thumb), but to no avail. It 
spread up his arm and ANOTHER TUMOR began growing just below the elbow, then it 
went up his shoulder to his neck and yet ANOTHER TUMOR popped up. Keep in mind, 
these are all connected to the one in the thumb, when press on the one in his arm, he 
feels it in his neck and thumb. 

This week another one came out on his SPINE. The most fatal one of them all, and 
he's losing control of his right leg and must walk with a cane. The spine tumor in 24 
hours doubled in size and is now the size of a golf ball. They warned him a couple of 
months ago when they took him to San Francisco General to see specialists in this 
disease that it was too late. CDC had wiated too long and the tumor was on the move 


and would blind him, cripple him and probably kill him within the next year. 

In two short months he has felt the spread of the tumor and this week discovering the 
one on his spine has shaken him and saddened him, as he is at the point where he has 
been told about all his life and spinal attack usually only takes a few shorts months 
(about 4) to kill. He needs strength during this time of crisis. 

He loves the Lord and he is not Angry at God, but he needs the love and support of the 
Children of God here at Mule Creek State University to embrace him. He surely does 
feel abandoned by his wife. His babie's names are Amanda, Marcie and Tom Jr. He's 
not going to get to see them again if he goes to be with the Father within the next few 


That bothers him a lot. 

Thank you for allowing me to share with you that it hurts to have a good friend being 
condemned to die by the medical neglect in prison. Thank you so much for your time 
and consideration. Keep up the good work, you are a God-send to inmates, if I had 
anyone out there, I would surely send them to help you as a member of the UNION. 


Mule Creek Inmate 

I filed the medical complaint that FINALLY resulted in a visit to a specialist and reported 
on this story here in the UNION Daily Newsletter several months ago. Thomas Lee also 
contacted CDC and Senator Vasconcellos, others with his own complaint, which was 
ignored until I stepped in to insist on obtaining an examination. It appears that he had 
the visit and there was no effort made to stop the tumors from taking over his body. 
Whether or not it is too late, I can't say for certain. 

I do believe this family has grounds for a medical neglect lawsuit, and his wife might 
want to reconsider a divorce because she and the children deserve compensation for 
this nightmare. How terrible it must be for her to bring three little children and sit in a 
visiting room with no toys watching their father suffer. How terrible it must be for him 
when good-byes are said, realizing it may be the last time he ever see them and 
wondering who is protecting them out in the world. 

How frightening it must be for the other inmates around Tom to see him go in such a 
cruel and inhumane manner. When he sent me the outline of his fingers on both hands 
(which I faxed to CDC and Matthew Gray in Senator Vasconcellos' office) I couldn't help 

but cry. 

Please ask your church to pray for Thomas Lee and others like him who are rotting 
away due to medical neglect and/or abuse in California's prisons and jails. If you would 
like to write to him, please let me know and I will give you the info. 

There's quite a bit of news today but I just need a little time to recover from this 
particular heartache. I see these stories everyday and I just can't understand why the 
families of inmates refuse to form picket teams that could draw attention to these cases 
before they get out of hand, before they kill their loved ones. 

How can anyone help people who are too ignorant to fight back for themselves by 


reporting such cases to me, to the media, and be willing to picket any warden who 
would allow this callousness? 

Our people need to do a much better job of letting inmates and their families know that it 
is their failure to organize which is allowing people to suffer and die at the hands of a 
callous criminal justice system in prison. We could have reached Tom Thumb much 
earlier and perhaps saved his life if he had only known about the UNION. 

Voter Apathy and WEAKNESS in confronting evil are inexcusable and deadly for all 
inmates. The families have no choice but to pull together and show up for pickets, 
not just for themselves but for others too. There is no reason to be a victim of callous 
prison administrators. 

God does not make us in the image of fear the Bible says. The answer to end medical 
neglect and imprisonment of people who haven't really committed serious crimes lies 
within you and your willingness to do a little EASY work. 

This story deserves to be written up in the media for everyone to witness. I am happy to 
assist with contacts. 

Tearfully yours in the struggle, 
B. Cayenne Bird 

Another newsletter excerpt of an inmate death where no attempt was made to help him 
whatsoever. He seized for 27 minutes on the cold concrete with the prison infirmary only 
a few feet away. No one checked his vitals, offered first aid or even bothered to carry 
him to help. 

The other inmates are still in shock knowing how they will likely end up! Mule Creek is a 
living hell and Knowles will be the most expensive Warden the prison has ever had 
when all the pending lawsuits (more in the works) are battled in court. 

I am so enraged that I plan to personally sit through each and every one of these trials. 
Let my presence make him realize that every inmate is some mother's child — 

This went unreported by the Bee and other newspapers. This is a press advisory. 


On Friday, April 26, 2002 Inmate Robert Horn CDC P-13287 had a seizure inside his 
cell. Horn's inmate yelled to floor officers that his cellmate was down. 

Responding officers (alleged to be Bolon and Purofoy) removed Horn from the cell and 
laid him down on the ground. His vital signs were not checked, nor was any first aid 
administered according to witnesses. 

Horn was left lying on the cold concrete floor for exactly 27 minutes awaiting the arrival 

of a golf cart "ambulance" which had to be manuevered through a narrow gate and 
dnven a distance of only about 100 yds. to Horn's unit, Building #10. 

It would have taken 4 officers no more than 5minutes to place Horn into one of the 
orange body stretchers and carry him directly to the infirmary located only 100 yds. 


Horn died. He was a mental helath patient assigned to the E.O.P. in Building 10. He 
was only 23 yrs. old bom on June 10, 1978. The question is what has CDC learned 
from the medical neglect lawsuits filed against them for this very same reason. 

They are literally getting away with murder. Reliable source at Mule Creek State Prison, 

This one has not yet appeared. It was sent to me from several Mule Creek Inmates who 
fear retaliation on 3/31/02 

Prison Gymnasiums 

Prison gympasiums were not designed nor were they ever intended to house inmates. 
The size of the gyms here at MCSP are slightly larger than a regulation basketball court. 

On sub-facility "B" there are 160 inmates housed in the gym, in double bunks. On sub 
A and C there are up to 160 inmates in each gym, in triple bunks, referred to as "cookie 
sheets" by inmates, because they are approximately eighteen inches apart and inmates 
must slide into their bunk as if they were on a cookie sheet. 

The gyms were approved for temporary housing, up to 90 days. However, inmates 
have been housed ino ur gyms for several years. Inmate Lopez, D-66340 has been 
housed in Fac B gym for nine years. 

During the past several years, there have been health alerts and outbreaks of 
Tuberculosis, Hepatitis and Scabies in our gyms. 

There ten toilets in each one of our three gyms, which is an inadequate number to 
service 160 to 180 men, especially during the morning rush, when inmates must all be 
ready for morning chow at the same time. Sinks and showerse are also inadequate. 

Exposed Gas Lines, electrical conduits and water pipes run along the walls and across 

the ceiling. 

Sodium-arc drop lights hang from the ceiling directly over the inmates while they sleep. 

Air quality in the gym is extremely unhealthy, ceiling insulation flakes, dust particles, lint 
from bedding (Wool blankets, sheets, towels, clothing and dead skin cells fill the air, drift 
down on sleeping inmates and is inhaled day and night by CDC staff and inmates. 

Inmates are improperly placed in all the gyms at MCSP, Facility A is a level 4 yard with 
level 3 inmates housed in their gym. Facilities B and C are level 3 yards with level 1 


and level 2 Inmates housed in their gyms. 

We understand these conditions are caused by over-crowding. However, they are 
illegla and are seemingly being ignored by administration. 

Please help us Cayenne, please. ...nobody should have to live like this.. ..not even an 

Mule Creek Inmates 

Dear Ms. Bird 

I am enclosing a copy of my account which shows a $64 charge for eye glasses that 
never showed up. I need these eye glasses real bad. I don't know why I must work 250 
hrs. before they are paid for since they're something I need. And now I'm paying and 
still don't have the glasses. 

My family doesn't have money to send me, so this charge they put on my account 
means I can't have canteen or anything else until I work it off. The prison doesn't 
provide much, it is all the burden of the families. 

Can you do anything to help me? 

John Contreras 

Dear Ms. Bird 

I have read some of the articles you've written and would like to thank you for being a 
voice for prisoners that desperately need to be heard and I would also like to make a 

Presently, I most desperately need your help. In one of your articles, it was mentioned 
that Dr. John Stanly is an internist and medical advisor to the UNION. In the article, Dr. 
John Stanly specifically spoke about inadequate medical care in the prison 

Ms. Bird, as a result of recent medical treatment and lack thereof, my left eye is 
disfigured, my vision is permanently dmaged and I am suffering other post surgery 
difficulties. Specifically, my eye was sunken in its socket 1/2" and when I sought medical 
attention I was told "nothing was wrong" with me. Subsequently I was diagnosed as 
having an orbital blow-out fracture. I remained in this painful and disfigured condition 
for a period of eleven months before mandatory corrective surgery was administered. 
During the entire leven month period, I diligently sought medical remedy which often 
met with hostility and indifference. 

From a layman's point of view, I believe the medical treatment I received as below 
professional standards, thus I have drafted a brief medical qestionnaire outlining the 
care I received, formatted to yes or no answers to save Dr. Stanly's time. The yes or no 


answers are connected to whether the particular care described was medically 
acceptable from a professional's standpoint. 

I beg of you, please send the enclosed letter to Dr. John Stanly, I've provided a self 

addressed stamped envelope. 

I apologize for the burden, but my recourses are few. Thank you for reading my letter 
Ms. Bird and thank you for being a voice/force to those in need. 

Respectfully and Sincerely, 

Lonnie Young 

We have a policy whereby the UNION members all stand up for one another's loved 
ones and we do not handle medical complaints from non-subscribers. We used to do 
this and couldn't pay our bills, in fact, my phone bill used to be $700 a month just faxing 
cases to journalists and legislators, handling medical complaints and that's why I moved 

to Sacramento. 

We must be by subscribers for subscribers only because we have no paid staff, 
hundreds (thousands) of complaints such as these arriving daily. This is akin to working 
in an emergency room with no surgeons and no blood supplies to back me up. 

No matter what is said to object to these warden confirmations, they are still hired and 
this neglect accepted as business as usual. 

Yes, there is sympathy from certain legislators but no enforcement, all of it is considered 
business as usual and is quite acceptable to everyone. It isn't their loved one suffering, 
paying out the taxpayer's money in lawsuits isn't that important. After all, the UNION is 
about the only citizen's group that challenges these atrocities because we bother to 
listen to inmates and their families. 

And we don't yet have the 6500 workers it requires to do recalls, change laws... so what 
pressure is there to make reforms? 

Sympathy is not reform. Sympathy is not remedy. 

I will go there at noon today, muster all my courage, try not to yell even though I want to 
scream over all inhumanity and pray for a softening of hearts. At 1 p.m., please say a 
prayer for me as I will be sitting right next to evil in the form of one hell's gatekeepers, 

Warden Michael Knowles. 

CDC is full of spin and excuses and the suffering and dying continues. I cannot, will not 
be sucked into believing excuses. There is no excuse for putting people in gyms for 
years at a time in conditions that are illegal even for a zoo animal. 

Where is justice? Where is God? Is all of this inhumanity a solution to crime? Quite 
the opposite is true... 

B. Cayenne Bird 

Additional copies of this publication may be purchased for $4.50 per copy 
(includes shipping and handling) plus current California sales tax. 

Senate Publications 

1020 N Street, Room B-53 

Sacramento, CA 95814 


Make checks payable to SENATE RULES COMMITTEE. 
Please include Stock Number 457-R when ordering. 






ROOM 113 


1:35 P.M. 


OCT - 2 2002 








ROOM 113 



1:35 P.M. 



Reported by: 

Evelyn J. Mizak 
Shorthand Reporter 








GREG SCHMIDT, Executive Officer 
PAT WEBB, Committee Secretary 
1] NETTIE SABELHAUS, Consultant on Governor's Appointments 


JOHN C. S PERRY, Member 
California Horse Racing Board 


SANDRA V. HUGHES, Deputy Director 
Employment Development Department 

BARRY BREWER, Deputy Director of Legislation 
Employment Development Department 

SAM RODRIGUEZ, Chief Deputy Director 
Employment Development Department 


California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board 


Proceedings 1 

Governor ' s Appointees : 


California Horse Racing Board 1 

Introduction and Support by 


Background and Experience 1 

Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Thirty Years of Experience 2 

Motion to Confirm 2 

Committee Action 2 

SANDRA V. HUGHES, Deputy Director 

Employment Development Department 3 

Opening Statement 3 

Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Protections for EDD Records 3 

Protections against Hackers 3 

Response by BARRY BREWER, 

Deputy Director of Legislation 

Employment Development Department 3 

Questions to MR. BREWER by SENATOR JOHNSON re: 

Storage of Employment Development Department 
Records 4 

Protective Firewalls 4 

Response by SAM RODRIGUEZ, Chief 
Deputy Director, Employment Development 
Department 5 



Location of Maintained Data for 

Employment Development Department 5 

Shared Responsibility for Security 6 

Protocol for Applying Patches 6 

Length of Time Two Firewalls Have Been in 

Place for Employment Development Department 

Data 7 

Tenure of Employment of Employment 

Development Department' s Hacker 8 

Questions to MS. HUGHES by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Possibility of Legal Barriers to 

Implementation of SB 1661 (Kuehl) 8 

Questions by SENATOR ROMERO re: 

Access Concerns, and Potential Civil 

Rights Violations 9 

Motion to Confirm 10 

Committee Action 10 


Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board 10 

Opening Statement 10 

Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Anything Bad that Happened since 

Prior Confirmation 11 

Reason Appeals Board Is Requesting 

They Report Directly to New Agency 

Secretary under Governor's Reorganization 

Plan 12 

Motion to Confirm 12 

Committee Action 13 


Termination of Proceedings 
Certificate of Reporter . . . 







CHAIRMAN BURTON: Is Mr. Sperry here? Come up. 

Senator Dunn. 

SENATOR DUNN: I just want to introduce 
Mr. Sperry. I'll make it very quick because I know the 
Committee's rushed. 

I've known this individual and his work down in 
Southern California. And I stand, or I actually sit before the 
Committee in strong support of his nomination. 


MR. SPERRY: Good afternoon, Senators. My name 
is John Sperry. 

I was appointed by the .Governor for the 
California Horse Racing Board, and I appear before you, asking 
for your support to that position. 

I have spent my life representing members working 
in the food industry, and at the same time, I've spent about 30 
years owning race horses myself. So, I'm quite familiar with 
the horse racing industry as well as what people need to make 
livings . 

I believe that I can be a benefit to the Board in 
many, many areas. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Johnson. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: No questions. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Romero. 

SENATOR ROMERO: No questions. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Knight. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: No questions. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Karnette. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: No questions. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: You spent 30 years betting or 
30 years what? 

MR. SPERRY: Thirty years raising and racing 
horses . 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Any witnesses in support? 
Witnesses in opposition? 

Hearing none, Senator Romero moves. Secretary, 
call the roll. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Karnette. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Karnette Aye. Senator Knight. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Knight Aye. Senator Romero. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Romero Aye. Senator Johnson. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Johnson Aye. Senator Burton. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Burton Aye. Five to zero. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Congratulations. Make your 


MR. SPERRY: Thank you for your time 
[Thereupon the Rules Committee 
acted upon legislative agenda 
items . ] 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Is Sandra Hughes here? Come 
up, ma'am, please. 

MS. HUGHES: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and 
Members of the Committee. My name is Sandra Hughes. 

It's a pleasure to be here today. I have the 
honor of being nominated as Deputy Director and Chief Counsel 
for the Employment Development Department. 

I have previously submitted a statement, and I 
would be pleased to answer any questions you have. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: What protections do you have in 
place to see that EDD records aren't compromised the way that 
the records were by a hacker? 

MS. HUGHES: We have in place an information 
security officer which ensures that the employees are trained as 
to how to handle confidential information. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: No. If somebody got into it, 
it wasn't the employees. 

What do you do to stop somebody from getting in 
as opposed to an employee letting it out? Or if you don't know, 
that's all right. 

MS. HUGHES: I don't know. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: You ought to find out. You 
read about the Teale Data Center? 


CHAIRMAN BURTON: I would think that you should 
try to find out exactly how you can, hopefully, prevent that at 
least from happening. 

EDD, although, as I understand it, they got 

1 information, but they didn't really use it. 

2 Barry, do you know anything about that? 

3 MR. BREWER: I didn't hear what you said. 

4 CHAIRMAN BURTON: Come on up for a minute. 

5 Identify yourself for the record. 

6 MR. BREWER: Barry Brewer. I'm the Deputy 

7 Director of Legislation for the Employment Development 

8 Department . 

9 CHAIRMAN BURTON: We were just talking about 

10 protections either in place or that can be put in place to make 

11 sure that EDD files don't get what the Teale Data Center files 

12 got? 

13 And if you don't know, that's fine. 

14 MR. BREWER: I did have a conversation with 

15 Secretary Johnson. As you know, we're part of that, and he did 

16 say there were protections in place. And he was proud to be 

17 able to say that we weren't going to end up like the Teale Data 

18 Center. 

19 SENATOR JOHNSON: Where are records that you 

20 maintain stored? Are they stored at the Teale Data Center? 

21 MR. BREWER: No, they're not. 

22 SENATOR JOHNSON: Another data center? 

23 MR. BREWER: There's another data center. 

24 SENATOR JOHNSON: One of the things that's come 

25 to light is, the so-called firewalls were not in place for the 

26 Controller's data. Do you know if that is the case? 

27 Also another thing that's come to light is that 

28 patches that are provided, that means updates, upgrades to 

prevent security lapses are provided by the vendors who provide 
the software out there, and that these patches were not put in 
place . 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I think we've got somebody 
here . 

You're dismissed, Barry. 

MR. BREWER: Thank you. 

MR. RODRIGUEZ: Senator Burton, I'm the Chief 
Deputy Director at EDD, Sam Rodriguez. It's a pleasure to be 
here in front of the Committee. 

The answer to that question technically, we -- 
EDD has two firewalls. No other department has two firewalls. 

We also have a civil servant who, eight hours a 
day, five days a week, is a professional hacker within EDD. 

Every single night we batch all the records from 
our single-client data base at 7:00 P.M. And they're cleaned 
from 7:00 P.M. to 10:00 P.M. so they're up again at 7:00 A.M. 
the next day. That goes on seven days a week. 

On a quarterly basis, we bring down the systems, 
and we look for any viruses, whether it's inside the firewall or 
outside the firewall. 

We have a highly extensive approach for security. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: And your data is maintained 
where, internally within, or do you have it in another state 
data center? 

MR. RODRIGUEZ: The data center is the HHS data 
center, Health and Human Services data center. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: And is there a shared 

responsibility -- 

MR. RODRIGUEZ: There is a shared responsibility. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: — for security? 

MR. RODRIGUEZ: That's correct. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: What's the protocol for 
applying the patches, as that information becomes available? 

MR. RODRIGUEZ: You're going lower -- lower down 
to the weeds to my expertise. 

I can share with you that we just recently -- we 
just recently purchased, and no other department has within 
state government, we purchased Policy Director, which is the 
state-of-the-art security system produced by IBM. And the data 
center has been testing in production for the last three 
months . 

SENATOR JOHNSON: This alerts you to the 
potential of hackers trying to gain access? 

MR. RODRIGUEZ: Hackers and also authenticity for 
protection of individual records. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: One question that I asked you 
don't know answer to, what are the protocols for dealing with 
patches as that information becomes available, whether you're 
proactively seeking out. 

As I understand it, sometimes that's information 
that's just provided. It's out there on the Internet. Other 
times it's kinds of like a red alert coming from the software 
providers . 


SENATOR JOHNSON: What's the timeframe for 


1 applying a patch? 

2 I also understand that it may be a problem if you 

3 have ten patches suggested, and the first nine of them weren't 

4 attached, and then the tenth one, that it may not work because 

5 you have to do them sequentially. 

6 The question is, and it's a long way from this 

7 lady's qualifications, but it is a question, I think, of some 

8 real interest to the Legislature. 

9 MR. RODRIGUEZ: We will gladly supply for the 

10 record in writing the protocols for the patch between the data 

11 center and EDD. 

12 SENATOR JOHNSON: Thank you. 

13 CHAIRMAN BURTON: And probably, if you've got 

14 such a good deal, you might want to share it with the Teale 

15 Center and somebody else. 

16 MR. RODRIGUEZ: We are currently doing that, 

17 Senator. 

18 SENATOR JOHNSON: One last question. 

19 You indicated that you have basically two 

20 firewalls. How long have those been in place? 

21 MR. RODRIGUEZ: They've been in place for now a 

22 little bit over a year. 

23 SENATOR JOHNSON: Both, or one and then another? 

24 MR. RODRIGUEZ: Correct. 

25 SENATOR JOHNSON: So, the first one was in place 

26 about a year ago, and then subsequently there's been an 

27 additional firewall? 

28 MR. RODRIGUEZ: That's correct. The first one 

was an external firewall, and now we have -- we have now an 
internal firewall. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: This individual who is a red 
team hacker for you, how long has that individual been -- 

MR. RODRIGUEZ: A long time, sir. I believe he's 
been doing this the type of work for over six, seven years. 


MR. RODRIGUEZ: Yes. He's been a civil servant 
for 27 years within EDD. He's considered to be -- 

SENATOR JOHNSON: I always think of these people 
as being teenagers. 

Thank you. 

MR. RODRIGUEZ: You're welcome, sir. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Are you familiar with Senator 
Kuehl's 1661? 

MS. HUGHES: Yes, I am. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Are there any legal barriers, 
do you know of, to implementing that if the Governor decides to 
sign it? 

MS. HUGHES: I don't believe so. That's dealing 
with the domestic partners and other individuals. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Romero. 


There's been some concern that many of the field 
offices have been closed, and so access to filing claims right 
now is purely via telephone, especially in agricultural areas, 
rural areas, areas like maybe inner city garment areas. There's 
concerns about access via Spanish, and Mandarin, Chinese. 

Are you familiar with this concern? What 
briefing have you done with respect to potential civil rights 
violations with respect to the Dymally-Alatorre Bilingual 
Services Act? And what briefings have been done to address this 

MS. HUGHES: Well, no briefings have been done 
with me, Senator, but I'd be more than happy to get that 
information for you as to what EDD is doing. 

SENATOR ROMERO: It hasn't come to your attention 


SENATOR ROMERO: All right, thank you. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Knight. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: No questions. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: No questions. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Do you have any family with 


CHAIRMAN BURTON: Would you like to introduce 

MS. HUGHES: Yes, I would. 

My daughter, Kim Keeley. Stand up. She just 
graduated from San Jose State University. 

My companion and friend, Dennis Chandler. 

And then my father, who's a retired military man, 
Charles Hughes. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: That got you Colonel Knight's 
vote . 

you, ma am 



[Laughter . ] 
MS. HUGHES: My mother, Edna Hughes. 
CHAIRMAN BURTON: Any witnesses in opposition? 
Hearing none, move the nomination. 
SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Karnette. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Karnette Aye. Senator Knight. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Knight Aye. Senator Romero. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Romero Aye. Senator Johnson. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Johnson Aye. Senator Burton. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Burton Aye. Five to zero. 
CHAIRMAN BURTON: Congratulations. 
MS. HUGHES: Thank you very much. 
CHAIRMAN BURTON: Cynthia Thornton. 
MS. THORNTON: Good afternoon. I'm Cynthia 

I am here to be confirmed again for the Chair of 
the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board. I've been in this 
position for two-and-a-half years. 

I've had some lovely meetings with some of you. 
Thank you for meeting with me. They've all been fun. 

I've submitted a letter to you of accomplishments 
we've had over the last of couple years and what are plans are. 

If there's any questions, I ' d be happy to answer 



CHAIRMAN BURTON: It's a big day for Hastings, 
two graduates. 

MS. THORNTON: That would be you and me and -- 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: No, I didn't graduate. Sandra 
Hughes. I got out early. 

Anything bad happen since the last time you were 

MS. THORNTON: Yes, the San Francisco Chronicle 
wrote that article. And senator Burton, I may be holding you 
responsible for that. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I wouldn't doubt it if they 
were attacking me. 

Senator Johnson. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: No questions. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Romero. 

SENATOR ROMERO: No questions. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Karnette. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: No questions. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Do you have, and I think you 
do, any family with you? 

MS. THORNTON: Yes, I do. I would like my sons, 
Nick and Alex, to stand. My twin sons, and they are eight years 
old, and they're just finishing up third grade in public school 
in San Diego. 

I'd also like to introduce some of our staff 
that ' s here . 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Do you always dress them the 



MS. THORNTON: They dress themselves. They 
started doing that real early. I couldn't stop them. 

We have our Executive Director and Chief 
Administrative Law Judge, J. Arcellana, and our Chief Counsel, 
Rob Hilton here, in case anybody had any hard questions that I 
wasn't able to answer. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Part of the review process on 
the creation of that Labor Workforce Development Agency, the 
Appeals Board has requested they report directly to the new 
Agency Secretary rather than through EDD. Why? What was the 

MS. THORNTON: We decide appeals from EDD. And a 
lot of our decisions say EDD was wrong. It probably is not a 
good idea for us to be under EDD in those circumstances. That's 
number one. 

Number two is -- 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: We asked that during the 
hearing; didn't we? I vaguely remember the answer. 

Any witnesses in opposition? 

Hearing none, move the nomination. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Karnette. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Karnette Aye. Senator Knight. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Knight Aye. Senator Romero. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Romero Aye. Senator Johnson. 




SECRETARY WEBB: Johnson Aye. Senator Burton. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Burton Aye. Five to zero. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Thank you and congratulations. 

MS. THORNTON: Thank you very much. It's a real 

[Thereupon this portion of the 
Senate Rules Committee hearing 
was terminated at approximately. 
2:00 P.M. ] 

— -00O00-- 































I, EVELYN J. MIZAK, a Shorthand Reporter of the State 
of California, do hereby certify: 

That I am a disinterested person herein; that the 
foregoing transcript of the Senate Rules Committee hearing was 
reported verbatim in shorthand by me, Evelyn J. Mizak, and 
thereafter transcribed into typewriting. 

I further certify that I am not of counsel or 
attorney for any of the parties to said hearing, nor in any way 
interested in the outcome of said hearing. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 
<f ■ y^- , 2002. 


*-> day of 

'-c (_ 


Shorthand Reporter 

Additional copies of this publication may be purchased for $3.00 per copy 
(includes shipping and handling) plus current California sales tax. 

Senate Publications 

1020 N Street, Room B-53 

Sacramento, CA 95814 


Make checks payable to SENATE RULES COMMITTEE. 
Please include Stock Number 458-R when ordering. 






OCT - 2 2032 



ROOM 113 


1:32 P.M. 

459- R 

Reported by: 





ROOM 113 



1:32 P.M, 

Evelyn J. Mizak 
Shorthand Reporter 










GREG SCHMIDT, Executive Officer 

PAT WEBB, Committee Secretary 

NETTIE SABELHAUS, Consultant on Governor's Appointments 







Valley State Prison for Women, Chowchilla 

ROY MABRY, State President 

Association of Black Correctional Workers 

SUZANNA AGUILERA-MARRERO, Association President 
Chicano Correctional Workers Association 

CSEA, Valley State Prison 


California Correctional Supervisors Organization 


Association of Black Correctional Workers 

San Joaquin Valley 












Victim Services Center 

RICHARD TATUM, State President 

California Correctional Supervisors Organization 


Correctional Institutions Committee, CSEA 

JAN FLANIGAN, Community Resources Manager 
Central California Women's Facility 

CHARLES BABILLA, Prison Industries Manager 
CCWF, Valley State Prison 

Walden House, Inc. 


R.J. Donovan Correctional Facility 

JESSE R. NAVARRO, San Diego Resident 

Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, San Diego County 

ART MARENO, Correctional Lieutenant 
R.J. Donovan Correctional Facility 

RAYMOND DIN, Regional Vice President 
Local Chapter, CCWA 

Chuckawalla Valley State Prison 


CSEA Local 1000, SEIU 


Employees Association, Chuckawalla Valley State Prison 

JOHN CULTON, M.D., Chief Medical Officer 



JOHN FLAHARTY, Past Chapter President 

California Correctional Institution 

MARIANA TEEL, Mayor Pro Tern 
City of Tehachapi 

NICK R. MARTINEZ, Vice President and Chief Steward 
CSEA/SEIU Local 1000 



Proceedings 1 

Governor ' s Appointees : 


Valley State Prison for Women, Chowchilla 1 

Background and Experience 1 

Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Different Rules at Male Facilities 

Than at Female Facilities 2 

Main Commitment Crimes of Women 2 

Witnesses in Support : 

ROY MABRY, State President 

Association of Black Correctional Workers 5 

Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Status of Officer Work Stations 6 

Involvement in Employee Disciplinary 

Process 7 


Chicano Correctional Workers Association 8 

CINDY GREER, Teacher and Job Steward 

CSEA, Valley State Prison for Women 8 

Questions by SENATOR KARNETTE re: 

Status of 4-C 9 

JOHN ANDERSON, Chapter President 

California Correctional Supervisors Organization 9 

FRANK SANDERS, Chairperson 
San Joaquin Valley Chapter 
Association of Black Correctional Workers 10 



Victim Services Center, Madera County 10 

RICHARD TATUM, State President 

California Correctional Supervisors Organization 12 


Correctional Institutions Committee, CSEA 12 

6 JAN FLANIGAN, Community Resources Manager 

Central California Women' s Facility 12 


VITKA EISEN, Associate Director 
10 Criminal Justice Programs, Walden House 14 

Motion to Confirm 15 

Committee Action 15 


Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility 16 






CHARLES BABILLA, Prison Industries Manager 

CCWF and VSPW 13 

Background and Experience 16 

Questions by SENATOR JOHNSON re: 

Institution Operating at 210 Percent of 
18 Design Capacity 16 

Questions by SENATOR ROMERO re: 

Education Programs 17 

Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Use of Volunteer Inmates for Programs 18 

Original Design of Prison, Two per Cell 19 

Dealing with Needed Repairs 20 

Backed up Sewage in Dental Clinic 2 

Witnesses in Support: 

ROY MABRY, State President 

Association of Black Correctional Workers 5 


Chicano Correctional Workers Association 8 


San Diego County, Hispanic Chamber of Commerce 21 

Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

History of RICHARD J. DONOVAN 22 

RICHARD TATUM, State President 

California Correctional Supervisors Organization .... 23 

ART MARENO, Correctional Lieutenant 

Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility 23 


Correctional Institutions Committee, CSEA 24 

MARI GOODMAN, District Labor President 

DLC 707 , CSEA 34 


CCWA, Local Chapter 24 

Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Criteria for Becoming Warden 25 

Motion to Confirm 26 

Committee Action 26 


Chuckawalla Valley State Prison 26 

Background and Experience 26 

Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Actions Taken to Improve Conditions 

Caused by Excessive Heat 28 





Heat Exhaustion 29 

Disciplinary Problems Due to Heat 30 

Questions by SENATOR KARNETTE re: 

Security Level of Prisoners 3 

Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Inmate Selection Process for Substance 

Abuse Program 31 

Length of Program 31 

Familiarity with Problems of 


Witnesses in Support : 

ROY MABRY, State President 

Association of Black Correctional Workers 5 




Chicano Correctional Workers Association 8 




MARI GOODMAN, District Labor President 

DLC 707 , CSEA 34 

lv DIANNE McDOUGAL, President 

Employees Association, CVSP 35 

DR. JOHN CULTON, Chief Medical Officer and 

Health Care Manager, CVSP 36 

RAY DIN, Regional Vice President 

Chicano Correctional Workers Association 3 7 

RICHARD TATUM, State President 

California Correctional Supervisors Organization 3 7 


Association of Black Correctional Workers 3 8 



JOHN FLAHARTY, Past Chapter President 


Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Average Term for Wardens 3 9 

Possible Reason for So Many- 
Wardens at CVSP 3 9 

Motion to Confirm 4 

Committee Action 4 


California Correctional Institution, Tehachapi 40 

Background and Experience 4 

Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Only Adult Prison with Youthful Offenders 41 

Steps to Speed up Processing of 

Youthful Offenders 41 

Loss of Reception Center 42 

Usual Commitment Offenses of Youthful 

Offenders 43 

Level I Youthful Offenders Convicted as 

Adults 44 

Programs for Youthful Offenders 4 5 

Questions by SENATOR ROMERO re: 

Separation of Youthful Offenders into 

Various Custody Levels • •• . 46 

Average Inmate Reading Level 4 6 

Assessment of Effectiveness of 

Educational Programs 4 7 




Questions by SENATOR KNIGHT re: 

Infrastructure and Maintenance . . 4 8 

Heating Problems 48 


Reason Level I Youthful Offenders 
6 Were Tried as Adults 49 

Witnesses in Support: 

ROY MABRY, State President 

Association of Black Correctional Workers 5 


Chicano Correctional Workers Association 8 

MARI GOODMAN, District Labor President 

DLC 707 , CSEA 34 

MARIANA TEEL, Mayor Pro Tern 
14 City of Tehachapi 49 

NICK MARTINEZ, Vice President and Chief 

Steward, District Labor Council 771 

CSEA, SEIU Local 1000 49 

RICHARD TATUM, State President 

California Correctional Supervisors Organization 50 

19 Motion to Confirm 50 

Committee Action 5 

Termination of Proceedings 51 

Certificate of Reporter 52 




CHAIRMAN BURTON: Governor's appointees, Gloria 
Henry, Valley State Prison, Chowchilla. 

MS. HENRY: Good afternoon, honorable Chair, Vice 
Chair, and other Committee Members. 

My name is Gloria Henry. I'm the Warden at 
Valley State Prison for Women in Chowchilla, California, where 
I have served for the last 14 months, with my official 
appointment by Governor Gray Davis January 3rd, 2002. 

I would publicly acknowledge and express my 
sincere appreciation to the professional staff of Valley State 
Prison for Women for all of their help and support during this 
last year. And I would also like to thank the Committee for 
giving me the opportunity to sit before you. 

I bring to this position 25 years of experience 
working for the Department of Corrections. Twenty of those 
years I've been responsible for the supervision, classification, 
programming and managing of the female population. I believe my 
experience, education, training and correctional expertise has 
adequately prepared me to assume the position of Warden. 

I am here today to respond to any questions that 

you may have 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Johnson. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: No questions. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Karnette. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: No questions. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Should there be different kinds 

of rules at a women's facility than a men's facility? 
2 MS. HENRY: I believe that there -- -- 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Not different kinds, but 
4 different kinds. 

[Laughter . ] 
6 CHAIRMAN BURTON: If you follow my drift. 

MS. HENRY: I believe there are needs, that some 
of the rules and regulations are different for women, that are 
9 more gender responsive. 

10 But at the same time, I think that we also need 

11 to be careful in terms of the rules that are different that may 

12 open us up for some litigation on the part of the male inmates. 

13 I think the Department over the years, with the 

14 growth of the women's population, they have begun to look at 

15 policies and procedures that impact the women's population. So 

16 yes, I think there is a need to make some differences. 

17 CHAIRMAN BURTON: In your experience, what do you 

18 think should be done to help keep women from returning to 

19 prison? 

20 First of all, basically the women in prison, at 

21 least as you know it, what are the basic crimes that they commit 

22 mostly? 

23 MS. HENRY: Most of their crimes are committed as 

24 a result of substance abuse. 

25 CHAIRMAN BURTON: Drug related? 

26 MS. HENRY: Yes. And that has caused a 

27 tremendous growth in the population. 

28 CHAIRMAN BURTON: Drug abuse and spousal abuse? 

MS. HENRY: Well, I guess that probably would 
kind of go in there a little bit, but I think primarily it's 
drug abuse. And of course, as a result of the drug abuse, 
oftentimes they put themselves in positions where they are 
physically abused, whether it's by a spouse or a significant 
other . 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Their drug crimes, possession 
and utilization of drugs, or they did something illegal because 
they were on drugs? 

' MS. HENRY: A lot of it. A lot of their 
commitment offenses are as a result of drug usage and/or 
possession or sale, or committing other crimes in order to 
support their drug habits, such as petty theft, burglaries, and 
that kind of stuff. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Except for the spousal 
situations, are many women in on violent crimes? Except for, 
shall we say, women who, you know, attack or kill their spouses 
or significant others, are they in there for, like many of the 
men, drive-by shootings, violent crimes things, of that sort? 
Or mostly for property crimes and stuff like that? 

MS. HENRY: The largest percentage is for 
property crimes. We do have them there that were gang 
affiliated and were participants in drive-bys, and that number 
is, to some degree, growing. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: They were actual participants, 

or they were involved in the gang, and the gang was involved in 


MS. HENRY: You mean in terms of participating, 

1 actual gang members? 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I mean, are they in the car; 
are they out of the car; they were driving it? You know, active 
4 versus passive. 

I'm just trying to learn something. It really 
6 doesn't have a hell of a lot to do with the job you're doing. 

MS. HENRY: In most of the cases that I review in 
classification, they were participants. They were not, say, the 
9 shooters. 


11 MS. HENRY: Active participants in the car. 

12 CHAIRMAN BURTON: They're mostly younger women, I 

13 guess, in that deal? 

14 MS. HENRY: Yes. 

15 CHAIRMAN BURTON: Do you have any family here 

16 you'd like to introduce? 

17 MS. HENRY: Yes, I do, quite a few. 

18 Well, my husband is over there, James Henry. And 

19 I think he offered up his seat to my mother — 

20 CHAIRMAN BURTON: Very smart man. 
11 [Laughter.] 

22 MS. HENRY: My sister, my son, my sister in the 

23 back, my brother, my nephew, my sister-in-law. 

24 CHAIRMAN BURTON: We're going to try to get you 

25 out quick and empty this room. 

26 [Laughter. ] 

27 CHAIRMAN BURTON: Do you have any questions, 

28 Senator Knight? 


CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Romero. 


CHAIRMAN BURTON: Witnesses in support, briefly. 
And I'm very serious, briefly. We have a very full calendar, 
and there has been no opposition shown to the wardens. 

Brother Mabry, if you will. 

MR. MABRY: Thank you, Senator. 

Chairman Burton, Committee Members, and 
Appointments Secretary Sabelhaus, my name Roy Mabry. I'm the 
State President, Association of Black Correctional Workers. 

I'm here to support Ms. Henry today in very 
clearly the confirmation that's going to be done shortly. 

I know that we always get into the areas of what 
goes on with the institution within supervision and things that 
occur with inmates, but there's some things that occur with 
employees that I don't ever hear us talk about in these meetings 
in terms of what wardens actually do to assist people on 
occasions . 

I'm happy that I've worked under Ms. Henry. She 
was my sergeant back in the '70s. I know I don't have the 
appearance of an older person. 

[Laughter . ] 

MR. MABRY: And I was actually a single parent 
in the '70s, and my daughter — all of a sudden, I became a 
single parent. My hours didn't accommodate what I needed to do 
for parenting, and Ms. Henry adjusted the hours to where I saved 
a fortune in babysitting. Now my daughter's an actual employee 

and officer with the Department of Corrections, one of those 

2 highly paid officers, by the way, Senator Burton. 

3 With that, I just wanted to share that small 
amount of history in terms of things that people do to make that 
employee adjustment to make things go the way they actually 

6 should be going when somebody's working and doing things they 
.should be doing. 

She was my lieutenant, she was my captain, and 
then she moved on around the state, working at other places. 
It's not often you get a chance to share your personal 

11 experience based on wardens. Normally, you get resumes and 

12 history based on what people pass on to you about their work 

13 habits. But in this case, it's totally different. 

14 Also, at the same time, I'd like to share that 

15 equal support for the other wardens, which are Mr. Robert 

16 Hernandez from Donovan State Prison. Hopefully he will be 
confirmed without any delays. Also Mr. Thomas Vaughn and 

18 Mr. Michael Yarborough. 

19 CHAIRMAN BURTON: Thank you — 

20 Actually, there are two questions that I had 
forgotten to ask, and your testimony reminded me. I'm sure 

22 she's happy you came up. 

24 CHAIRMAN BURTON: What's the status of the 

officers work stations that were negotiated, I guess, last year 
26 at the prison? 
I - MS. HENRY: The status of the officers work 

station is that they are in the process of being constructed. 


1 One of them has been constructed, minus the security glass 

2 because they were not able to purchase it until they got the 

3 stations up in order to get the right measurements. But the 

4 stations are being done right now. 

5 CHAIRMAN BURTON: Are you involved in the 

6 disciplinary process of the personnel at the prison? Do you 

7 oversee it? Do you sit in? Do you direct it? How does that 

8 work? 

9 MS. HENRY: Basically when an allegation is made 

10 against an employee, depending on the severity of the 

11 allegation, we will do an internal investigation, what they call 

12 a Category I investigation, which is done by a sergeant or a 

13 lieutenant at the institution. 

14 If it's a serious, something that could, in fact, 

15 end up in court, then it's referred out to the Office of 

16 Internal Affairs, and the investigation is done by one of their 

17 agents. 

18 If the charges or the allegations are sustained 

19 based on the investigation, the package comes back in, the 

20 completed investigation, and I would make a penalty 

21 recommendation. That penalty recommendation then gets reviewed 

22 through my chain of command, which is the Regional Administrator 

23 up to the Director's office. 

It also goes through Legal for them to review and 

determine whether or not the penalty is too severe, and they do 
comparisons to other cases that are similar, and whatever the 
penalty recommendation is, to make sure that we're not killing 
somebody else arid letting somebody else off fairly easily, and 


1 it's the same kind of offense. 

2 Once that's done, if they support the 
recommendation then it comes back to the institution to be 

4 served on the employee. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: How often when a warden 

6 recommends discipline do they reverse it? I mean, do they tend 
to go along? 

8 MS. HENRY: For the most part, because 

9 we're required to do -- 

10 CHAIRMAN BURTON: You're the ones there that kind 

11 of know what went on. 

12 MS. HENRY: True. What they may have is, what 

13 they'll do is, they'll call you and ask you some questions about 

14 it to kind of just give you a different perspective. 

15 CHAIRMAN BURTON: Thank you. 

16 Other witnesses in support? 

17 MS. AGUILERA-MARRERO: Good afternoon. Suzanna 

18 Aguilera-Marrero on behalf of the Chicano Correctional Workers 

19 Association. 

20 I will cut to the chase so I don't take up too 

21 much of your time. 

22 The Association has elected to support all four 

23 of candidates coming up for confirmation, and we encourage you 

24 to also confirm them. 

25 Thank you very much. 

26 CHAIRMAN BURTON: Thank you very much, ma'am. 
I" Next. 

28 MS. GREER: Good afternoon. My name's Cindy 

Greer. I'm a teacher and a job steward for CSEA at Valley State 
Prison for Women, working with Ms. Henry. 

I urge the Committee to endorse Ms. Henry. 
There's just a couple of issues we need to note. We need to 
continue working on the 4-C status that is contractual, that it 
be given to our members, and that our members do get access to 
representation when they request it. There's been one instance 
when it wasn't given when requested. 

The Warden is working with us to resolve these 
issues, and again, I urge you to endorse her, and I look forward 
to continuing to work with her on these issues and any other 
future issues that arise. 


MS. GREER: It is an exempt status of salaried 
employees. There were people who were hourly that Unit Three, 
the teachers, the librarians, have been given 4-C status as of 
July 1, 1999. Because of the wording of the contract, there is 
a different perception of how this is to be enacted. So, there 
are issues that arise because of that. 



Next . 

MS. GREER: Thank you. 

MR. ANDERSON: Good afternoon. My name is Jonn 
Anderson. I'm the Chapter President of the California 
Correctional Supervisors Organization at Valley State Prison. 

I want you to know that we support Ms. Henry for 
our warden. 


1 CHAIRMAN BURTON: Thank you. 

2 Next. 

MR. SANDERS: My name is Frank Sanders. I'm the 
A Chairperson of the San Joaquin Valley Chapter of the Association 

5 of Black Correctional Workers. 

6 I'm here to encourage this Committee's support 
for Ms. Henry as Warden at Valley State Prison for Women. 

8 Thank you. 

9 CHAIRMAN BURTON: Thank you, sir. 

10 Next. 

11 MS. DELGADO: Good afternoon. My name is Stella 
Delgado. I'm representing Victim Services Center for Madera 

13 County. 

14 I met Ms . Henry about year ago during a Victim 
Services luncheon. I work extensively with a lot of social 
service and nonprofit agencies in our county of Madera. And I'm 
here to share with you the tremendous work that she has done for 

18 our community. We were very impressed with the generosity, the 
contributions, and her support within her own institution to be 
very supportive of community functions, events, everything from 

11 Shoes That Fit Programs, to helping battered women, to children 
that are needy, also getting involved in crime prevention 

23 programs, police activity leagues, working with different 

organizations such as the Cancer Society and Parents United 

25 groups. 

Within the institution, many of the vocational 
programs have contributed greatly to the community. We're 
impressed with how much has been done just in her first year of 


leadership. We're sometimes very much in awe of it, and it 
comes up during different meetings and different opportunities, 
to discuss how we can continue working with them, both of the 
state prisons that are in Madera County. 

Our own Victim Services has benefitted greatly 
from a lot of the work that has been done at Valley State Prison 
under her leadership. We receive very generous support 
monetarily, and we also receive very much support in terms of 
time . 

We have five staff members that work at Valley 
State Prison that donate their time on a monthly basis to help 
victims of crime in our community, to staff a 24-hour crisis 
line, to go into court and to sit with victims, and go through 
that process with them, and be there in the middle of the night 
during crime scenes, working with law enforcement, and going -- 
basically being at hospitals and holding their hands. 

So, we were very, very excited when we learned in 
March that Ms. Henry was interested in being a volunteer for our 
program as well. And so, she completed 66 hours of very 
extensive training to be a paraprof essional counselor. We're 
very eager to have the opportunity to work with her. 

We offer our full support, and are looking 
forward our continued relationship with her, and the community 
is very, very much appreciative of everything that she has 
done . 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Thank you very much. 

MS. DELGADO: You're welcome. 



1 Could I see a little show of hands here as to how 

2 many more are coming up? Okay. 

MR. TATUM: Good afternoon, Committee. I'm 
Richard Tatum. I'm the State President of the California 
Correctional Supervisors. I've been here a couple times. 
6 Basically, I've known Ms. Henry since she was 

brand-new correctional officer working for me in the '70s. She 

8 started from bottom and worked her way up. 

9 We're supportive of her. She's supportive of us. 
She's the type of person that has the integrity and the 

11 knowledge and experience that's needed for a warden. 

12 With that, we support her. Thank you. 

13 CHAIRMAN BURTON: Thank you, sir. 

14 Yes, ma'am. 

15 MS. POWERS: I'm Barbara Powers. I work at Mule 

16 Creek State Prison. I'm a member of the Correctional 

17 Institutions Committee for CSEA. 

18 And on behalf of our members and our employees 

19 that work at Valley State Prison, we would like to encourage you 
2C to endorse her. She has been a substantial improvement in their 
11 eyes, and we're very happy to have her. 

22 CHAIRMAN BURTON: Thank you, ma'am. 

24 MS. FLANIGAN: My name's Jan Flanigan. I'm the 

Community Resources Manager at the Central California Women's 

26 Facility. 

27 I just really wanted an opportunity to sit down 

28 for a minute because I was standing up for so long. 


[Laughter . ] 

MS. FLANIGAN: While I'm here, I suppose I 
should say a few nice words. 

I worked with Gloria for ten years while she was 
at the Central California Women's Facility. During that time, I 
learned how charitable she is with her time and with her money. 
And people don't always know that right away because she doesn't 
always try and work things into a conversation. She doesn't 
talk about it. She doesn't boast about it. She just does it. 
And she volunteers a lot of her time with the community. She 
doesn't do it because of her position. She doesn't do it to be 
politically correct. 

I think if Gloria were a checker at a grocery 
store, she would still do that. She would still donate her time 
and her money. to charitable organizations. She just does it 
because it's the right thing to do, and that's who she is. 

The community is very lucky to have her. 



MS. BABILLA: Chair and Members, my name is 
Charles Babilla. I'm the Prison Industries Manager at both 
Central California Women's Facility and Valley State Prison for 
Women . 

I met Ms. Henry in 1995. She was then Associate 
Warden, and Ms. Henry is very supportive of Prison Industries 
and other programs. I've seen what she's done to us at both 
Valley State Prison and Central California Women's Facility. 
Most of all, she has a lot of ethics and values in life, and 


1 she's a very family person. 

Her humor is tremendous, even during any kind of 
circumstances. You know, her humor really bring a lot of -- you 
•; know, a breath of fresh air to her staff. 

Prison Industries Authority is in support of 
6 Ms. Henry for Warden. 

DR. EISEN: Good afternoon. I'm Dr. Vitka 
Eisen. I'm the Associate Director of Criminal Justice Programs 
for Walden House. Walden House is the contracted substance 
abuse services provider at Valley State Prison for Women, and 

12 we're here to speak on behalf of Walden House in support of 

13 Ms. Henry's confirmation. 

14 We have a program that serves 506 women at Valley 
State Prison for Women, and that makes it one of the largest 

16 in-custody substance abuse treatment programs in the country. 

17 Managing a program of such magnitude requires a great deal of 
commitment and vision on the part of the warden, and Ms. Henry 
has amply demonstrated great vision and leadership in her work 
with us. She has invited our managers into her management team, 
which helps for the seamless integration of services, and it 

22 helps build a great sense of comraderie and team. 

23 Ms. Henry's a get-it-done, problem solving kind 

24 of a warden. She often attends events at the substance abuse 

25 treatment program. 

26 She's also devoted a great deal of her career to 
working with women, working with incarcerated women, and that's 
a unique field, and it requires a special kind of person. 


CHAIRMAN BURTON: And you're in support? 

DR. EISEN: Totally. 

Thank you very much. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: I recognize that standing too 
long can be very tiresome. Sitting too long can be very 
tiresome . 

I'd like to move the nomination. 

DR. EISEN: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Could those who want to testify 
come up and just give your name and organization for the record 
in support, please. Are there any others? No? That was it. 

Boy, you know how to do it. 
[Laughter . ] 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Call the roll, please. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Karnette. 



Karnette Aye. Senator Knight. 


Knight Aye. Senator Romero. 


Romero Aye. Senator Johnson. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Johnson Aye. Senator Burton. 

Burton Aye. Five to zero. 
Congratulations, Warden. 


MS. HENRY: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Robert Hernandez 


1 MR. HERNANDEZ: Good afternoon, Senators. I have 

2 a brief statement. 

Senator Burton and Rules Committee Members, it's 
an honor to appear before you today. I am Robert J. Hernandez, 
Warden at the Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility in San 
6 Diego, California. 

My career began with the Department of 
Corrections in 1974 at Deuel Vocational Institution. Since that 
time I have had the opportunity to work at five different 
institutions. I have held many diverse positions during my 28 

11 years of experience, from a correctional officer at Deuel 

12 Vocational Institution to my current position as Warden at 

13 Richard J. Donovan Facility. 

14 I would like to take this time to acknowledge the 
staff at Deuel Vocational Institution, San Quentin State Prison, 
North Kern State Prison, Salinas Valley State Prison, and of 

17 course, the staff at Richard J. Donovan. Without their support 

18 and loyalty to the Department of Corrections, I truly believe 

19 that I would not be sitting here before this Committee today. 

20 This concludes my opening remarks. I'm available 

21 to answer any questions or concerns you might have. 

22 SENATOR JOHNSON: Your institution is operating 

23 at 235 percent of capacity? 

24 MR. HERNANDEZ: I checked my figures yesterday, 
Senator, and I believe it's more like 210. My current 

26 population is 4600. 

27 And I believe the information is incorrect. I 

28 believe the information that you folks might have says it's 


5600. I'm not quite sure. 

But my population currently is 4600 as of 

SENATOR JOHNSON: Forty-six hundred. 


SENATOR JOHNSON: I think the figures we were 
supplied said 5200. 

How does that compare, the 210 percent, compare 
with system wide? 


SENATOR JOHNSON: How does that compare with 
system wide? 

MR. HERNANDEZ: I'm really not sure what the 
statistics are at -- most of the prisons are either at 190 
percent or a little over 200. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: Senator Knight. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: No questions. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: Senator Karnette. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: No questions. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: Senator Romero. 


Let me just ask you, I was reading in your 
answers that the average reading level of the inmates in the 
institution is fifth grade. 

What are your education programs? 

MR. HERNANDEZ: We have several education 
programs. We have, of course, we have ABE I, which is Basic 
Adult Education.' We have many vocational programs. We have 


1 English as a second language program. 

We don't offer any college courses, but we have 
reading programs where everybody can get their GED or high 
school diploma. We're an accredited high school, Otay Mesa High 

5 School . 

6 SENATOR ROMERO: Are there waiting lists for 
these, and are they offered throughout the year, throughout the 
week, certain times? Can you just describe it a little bit? 


10 There is a very small waiting list, anywhere from 

40 to 50 inmates. We currently have two shifts of education, 
12 two shifts of 4-10-40. So, we have education going seven days a 

week at Richard J. Donovan. Our education department runs seven 

14 days a week. 

15 CHAIRMAN BURTON: Do you have any of the, shall 

16 we say, better educated inmates that are there? Do you try to 

17 see if they're willing to volunteer and help? 

18 You know, fifth grade educational level means 
that if they ever get out, they're probably going to be back 

20 pretty quick. 

I! .MR. HERNANDEZ: Yes. We do have inmates 

volunteer to help other inmates how to read, and that's a 
12 voluntary basis. 
24 CHAIRMAN BURTON: Do you encourage that? 

MR. HERNANDEZ: Yes, I do. 
26 CHAIRMAN BURTON: Explain to me, when we say that 

a prison's 200 percent capacity, the prisons were initially 
28 built for two per cell? 


MR. HERNANDEZ: No. My prison was built for 
2,200 inmates, and it was built in 1987. Since then, we've 
overcrowded it up to the percentage that we are today. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Was it built with the thought 
in mind two inmates a cell or one? 

MR. HERNANDEZ: I believe it was built for the 
thought of two inmates a cell. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Two inmates a cell? 


CHAIRMAN BURTON: So, what's the percentage you 
are now? 

MR. HERNANDEZ: I'm not — 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Let's say it's 200 percent; 
makes it easier for me. 

. That means that basically every cell has two 
people? Then where are the other -- 

MR. HERNANDEZ: Well, I have three gymnasiums 
that also have inmates in those. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: So, every cell's got two 

MR. HERNANDEZ: Not every cell. We have some 
inmates that refuse to double cell. I think I have 140 cells 
that are not doubled up right now because inmates are refusing 
to double cell. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: So, you've got 140 out of — 
let's again make it easy -- 2,000, so then you've got another 
2,000 that are in the gym and somewhere else? 

MR. HERNANDEZ: I have about 850 inmates in the 


1 gymnasiums, all three of them. 

2 CHAIRMAN BURTON: What are they doing, given the 
tight budget? It's my understanding there was fairly shoddy 

•; construction on the prison when it started, so it's in need of 

5 repairs. 

6 And I was going to say, I know one of the things 
that always gets cut back is maintenance, because they haven't 

8 yet joined the CCPOA. 

9 How do you deal with needed repairs under the 

10 tight budget situation? 

11 MR. HERNANDEZ: Well, it's very difficult. I'm 

12 actually 12 positions short in my maintenance department. 

13 But we do have a preventative maintenance 

14 program, and they do the best that they can. My understanding, 

15 my staff tell me since I've been there that they call it value 

16 engineering, apparently, when they built prison. And so, for 
its age, it is -- there is some disrepair for the institution. 

18 So the physical plant is deteriorating. 

19 But we're doing everything we can to fix the 
problems as soon as we can. We get support from the 
Department. But like everything else, it takes time, and there 

22 are different priorities in the Department to get funding to get 

23 these things fixed. 

24 CHAIRMAN BURTON: As I understand it, backed up 
sewage sometimes ends up spilling into the dental clinic, which 
I guess ail in all is not the best way to fix cavities. 

27 What are you doing trying to deal with that? I 

guess it's tough t'o move the dental clinic because they have to 


have a lot of pipes for both water and air, and things like 

MR. HERNANDEZ: Well, I have five dental clinics, 
and actually about a month so ago, I went and visited all five 
of them myself, because, you know, I've been at this institution 
for almost six months. I've heard a lot of complaints about the 
dental department, the fact that there was a sewage back-up. 

And apparently, what my staff apprised me of was 
that apparently our sewage system was connected directly to our 
dental clinics. So, since they brought that to my attention, 
we've rerouted the system from the dental clinics. So, there 
shouldn't be a back-up any more in the future. 

There was also a problem with the spillage. Of 
course, it ruined all the tile, and of course we had to replace 
the tile. And of course, that backed up some of the dental 
appointments that the inmates had. 


Do you have any family here, sir? 

MR. HERNANDEZ: I believe so. I don't know if 
they made it into the room. Let me see if I can find them. 

My wife Julie. My son Robert Hernandez, Jr. My 
daughter Theresa. I've got two brother-in-laws I can't shake; 
they're here, too. That's my brother-in-law Frank Placeras and 
his brother Carlos Placeras. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Witnesses in support, please. 

We all ready have on record Black Correctional 
and the Chicano Correctional. 

MR. NAVARRO: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, 


ladies and gentlemen. My name is Jesse Navarro. I am a 
2 resident of San Diego County. I've lived there for 41 years. 

I've been involved in various community business 
and law enforcement boards and commissions, and so forth. And I 
have had the privilege of meeting and knowing Mr. Hernandez for 
6 the last six months. 

On behalf of many community business and law 
enforcement people in San Diego County, I'm here simply to 
express our total support. He's done an exceptional, 
exceptional job in San Diego County, not only inside the 
institution but in the community. In the short time he's been 

12 there, he's taken time to meet the law enforcement people, to 

13 meet the community and the business people, and he is to be 

14 commended for that. 

15 This is only an initial example of the excellent 

16 job that he's been doing, and the excellent job that 

17 Mr. Hernandez will do at our local institution. 

18 Thank you for your support, and we support him 

19 100 percent. Thank you. 

i: CHAIRMAN BURTON: Thank you. 

21 Do you happen to know who Richard J. Donovan' was? 

22 MR. NAVARRO: You know, all I remember, ■ 

Mr. Chairman, is that he's, you know, one of the founders, but I 

24 really don't know. 

25 CHAIRMAN BURTON: No, he used to be in the State 

26 Assembly, then he became a judge. 

MR. NAVARRO: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: There you go. A little bit of 



Did you know who he was? 

MR. HERNANDEZ: Are you asking me? I didn't know 
him personally, but my staff -- 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: You always wonder who this 
person was. 

MR. HERNANDEZ: Actually, my understanding was 
that he was a big supporter of having the prison built there. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: He probably was, and then he 
filled it up as soon as me got on the bench. 

[Laughter. ] 

MR. NAVARRO: Thank you very much. 


Next, please. 

MR. TATUM: Hello, Committee. 

I'm Richard Tatum, State President of the 
California Correctional Supervisors Organization. 

Mr. Hernandez also was a correctional officer who 
worked for me in 1974 when I was his supervisor. He's worked 
his way up through the ranks, and we fully support him in his 
confirmation . 

Thank you. 


MR. MARENO: Good afternoon, Senator Burton and 
staff. My name is Art Mareno. I'm presently a lieutenant at 
Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility. I've been working for 
the Department of Corrections for approximately 17 years. 

And on behalf of 1400 employees that we have 









there, approximately, I believe a good leader, you need loyalty 
in that leader to show them the correct or pro guidance. And we 
believe if we could fit all 1400 employees in here, I believe 
everyone would say that we want Robert Hernandez as our Warden, 
Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility, because we are loyal 
to him, and he's going to have our loyalty. 

I highly suggest to appoint him for not only the 
morale and guidance that he will provide us, but also for the 
state in general. 


MR. MARENO: Thank you. 


MS. POWERS: I'm Barbara Powers. I'm a Member of 
the CIC Committee within CSEA. 

And I wasn't expecting today to be speaking for 
Warden Hernandez. Bobby Hall was scheduled, and due to an 
on-the-job injury in the kitchen, he's an employee at Donovan, 
he was unable to attend. 

And we just wanted to make sure the Warden was 
aware; however, we didn't speak to him directly about it. We 
went through the Director. 

So, we wanted to offer our support on behalf of 
the members and CSEA. 



MR. DIN: My name is Ray Din, representative of 
CCWA at the local chapter at Donovan. 

We're here in support for Mr. Hernandez. 


Good luck. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Any other witnesses in support? 

Let me ask you a question. How does one become a 
warden, besides getting appointed? Is there a certain criteria? 

MR. HERNANDEZ: Well, I don't know of any certain 
criteria, but most of the wardens that I know that have made 
warden usually just work their way up through the ranks. Most 
of them come through custody, some come through the business 
service side of the Department. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: You get at a certain level, and 
then you'd be eligible for warden? 


CHAIRMAN BURTON: Could they be jumped over? 


CHAIRMAN BURTON: They could be a sergeant, and 
then become a warden and jump over someone else? 

MR. HERNANDEZ: Yes. It's an appointed position, 
sure, but that usually doesn't happen. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Any required educational 
qualifications or anything? 

MR. HERNANDEZ: No, just a high school diploma as 
far as I know. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: Those sergeants, he worked for 
the sergeants. They didn't want to become wardens, so they 
pushed it off on him. 

[Laughter . ] 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: There's people like that, you 
know . 




























Witnesses in opposition? Hearing none, call the 
roll on the nomination. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Karnette. 


Karnette Aye. Senator Knight 


Knight Aye. Senator Romero. 


Romero Aye. Senator Johnson. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Johnson Aye. Senator Burton. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Burton Aye. Five to zero. 
CHAIRMAN BURTON: Congratulations, Warden. 
MR. HERNANDEZ: Thank you very much. 
CHAIRMAN BURTON: Thomas Vaughn, Chuckawalla 

State Prison. 

MR. VAUGHN: Senator Burton, Members of the 
Committee, thank you for the opportunity to meet with you today 
and present my credentials for confirmation as Warden of 
Chuckawalla Valley State Prison. 

With your approval, I have a brief prepared 
statement. Firstly,. I'd like to publicly acknowledge the staff 
at Chuckawalla Valley State Prison who have assisted me in 
preparing for today and for their support. 

I began my career 28 years ago as a correctional 
officer at Deuel Vocational Institution, completing assignments 
over the years at nine different prisons. I've worked all 


custody levels at both male and female facilities. My 
assignments through the ranks have include a variety of 
management positions. Prior to my current appointment, I served 
as the Chief Deputy Warden at both the California Correctional 
Institution and the California Substance Abuse Treatment 

Since my appointment as Warden at Chuckawalla in 
June of last year, my management focus has been ensuring public 
safety, improving communications with both the staff and inmate 
population, fully implementing our substance abuse program, 
improving our visiting operations, and cultivating a strong 
relationship with Health Care Services. 

I am committed to maintaining and expanding our 
effective partnership with local community, law enforcement 
agencies, and the courts. 

I welcome the opportunity to answer the 
Committee's questions. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Before we go any further, do 
you have any family here? 

MR. VAUGHN: Yes, sir, I do. Thank you. 

My lovely wife, Cynthia. Both my brothers, John 
and Mike and their families. My daughter, Cindy and her 
husband Clayton. And I think I have maybe nephews and nieces 
out there as well. 

Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I think you're still running 
second to Warden Henry. She beat you by four hands. 

It's pretty hot down there; right? And your air 


conditioning's not really the best. 

What can you do to improve air flow during the 
hot months? And I guess with the cutbacks, what you are doing 

MR. VAUGHN: Well, you're right, it does get — 
it borders on the unbearable. For many people, it exceeds the 

We reach temperatures on occasion of 130 degrees. 
And during those times at night, it doesn't cool off below 100, 
either . 

And it is a problem in the buildings. It's 
exacerbated because the inmates shower in the buildings, so 
while you have the high temperatures, you also have just a 
critical rise in humidity as well. 

I took a look at that last year. One of the 
things that we did to help in the immediate was, we fashioned, I 
guess, what you'd call security screen doors, that we were able 
to replace the solid doors with on the buildings, which allowed 
us to keep them open 24 hours a day. That significantly reduced 
both the temperature and the humidity in the buildings, making 
it much more tolerable. It still isn't comfortable, but it's 
still tolerable. 

When the institution was built, it was built with 
an evaporative system and not an air chiller system. We've 
submitted a capital outlay budget change proposal. We've been 
successful in getting the architectural and engineering survey 
completed. The result of that was, they agree. Not only do we 
need an air cooling system, an air conditioning system, but we 


also need new roofs. 

The downside of that was, they came in with a 
figure of, I think, about 28 million dollars to do that. So 
right now, while we're continuing to pursue that, we're having 
to live with the security doors. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I don't know the layout of the 
prison, but even like big kegs of ice with fans blowing off 
them, something like that, would it have any merit? 

MR. VAUGHN: It does have merit, and I think in 
the past that it's been done. I don't know if we're doing that 

We do have a minimum of seven of the very large 
industrial sized fans in each building. We recently went -- 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Seven in each building? 

MR. VAUGHN: Seven of those in each building. 
And we adjusted those to, you know, kind of assist in keeping 
the air moving, and kind of pumping the bad air out. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Ice is a fairly cheap thing. 

MR. VAUGHN: It is. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Do you ever have like inmates, 
I guess, heat exhaustion? Anybody that you know ever die down 
there from heat exhaustion or whatever? 

MR. VAUGHN: No, sir. We've never had a death. 
And in fact, strangely as it seems, heat stroke, heat exhaustion 
is very, very rare. I think there's been one case since I've 
been there. 

You don't have to be there very long before you 
realize how to take care of yourself in that heat. 







: _ 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: How would that be? 

MR. VAUGHN: Stay in the shade as much as you 
can, stay in the building when you can. Don't exercise during 
heat of the day. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: How about just the building at 
night? If it's a hundred degrees, do the cells have barred 
windows or something? I'm just trying to imagine, because the 
cells are small, you've got two people in there. I'm wondering 
like at night, especially if there's any humidity left over. 

Does it cause discipline problems? Do people get 
cranky, or not as much as one would think? 

MR. VAUGHN: First of all, we're lucky because I 
have a dorm, it's a dorm setting. So, the guys aren't locked up 
two to a cell. 

With that kind of air system, I don't think it 
could be done. I think it would cause friction. 

But in answer to the second part of your 
question, we really have very few disciplinary problems due to 
the hear. I'm sure that occasionally it happens, but it isn't a 
major issue. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: What level prisoners do you 
have? You can't pull all prisoners in a dorm setting; can you? 

MR. VAUGHN: No, you can't. We're a Level II 
facility with a 300 man minimum support facility. So, we have a 
small Level I, which is the lowest custody level. Everybody 
else is at Level II. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Johnson. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: No questions. 


CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Knight. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: No questions. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Karnette. 


CHAIRMAN BURTON: How do you select your inmates 
in the substance abuse program? 

MR. VAUGHN: We have a screening process that we 
go through. We've just initiated our substance abuse program. 
We're very happy with it. I think it's going to be very, very 
successful . 

We started it with 48 inmates. That was our 
startup number the middle or the first part of May. We're up to 
70 now, and we're adding 10 inmates every other week until we 
reach one whole building, which will be 298 inmates 
participating, half in the a.m. and then half in the p.m. 

What we're struggling with right now is just 
space, like everything else. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: How do you screen them? 

MR. VAUGHN: Oh, it's through the classification 
process. We take a look at variety of factors. Number one, of 
course, is, there has to be an element of substance abuse in 
their history. 

Then we take a look at the time involved, or the 
time that they have left to serve, to make sure that they have 
ample time to complete the program. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: How long's the program? 

MR. VAUGHN: A minimum of six months. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Somebody's in the program how 


1 many hours a day or a week? 

2 MR. VAUGHN: They're in the program five days a 

3 week, four hours a day. 

•; CHAIRMAN BURTON: They are? 

MR. VAUGHN: Yes, sir. 
6 CHAIRMAN BURTON: And the program consists of? 

MR. VAUGHN: It's through our contract provider, 
which is Amity House. And it's based on a therapeutic 
9 community. We have some very good counselors. 

10 CHAIRMAN BURTON: Group stuff? 

11 MR. VAUGHN: Yes, sir. 

12 CHAIRMAN BURTON: Psycho drama; any of that? 

13 MR. VAUGHN: Yes, all of that, yes, sir. 

14 CHAIRMAN BURTON: Who determined that six months 

15 would be the length? 

16 MR. VAUGHN: I'm not sure, Senator. I believe 

17 that that was established by the Department in working with the 

18 contractors. 

19 CHAIRMAN BURTON: Well, it would seem to me, 
2C although you're not full yet, but if you ever got a waiting 

21 list, that most of the drug programs are 21, 28 days. They're 

22 more all day than half a day. 

23 But that may be something, and if you don't have 

24 a waiting list, then it really wouldn't matter. But basically, 
28-day programs, or whatever, then the aftercare which just 
could be two or three nights a week, four nights, or even just a 
couple hours, AA programs. That would make sense. 

28 We had real hearings with the Youth Authority. I 


think their drug program, it seemed like it was three years. 
Even if you only had to serve two years' time, they'd keep you 
there an extra year for the program. They were doing it like an 
hour a day. I mean, it was stupid. 

Four hours a day, I think, makes sense. It 
really, I think, is something that it would make sense to have 
reviewed by experts in the field, or people that do it, because 
basically I know that most of the programs, if you go to Betty 
Ford, or you go to Camelback, you go to where ever, they're like 
21 to 28 days. Then, of course, you've got the aftercare 
component . 

I think that it could help you get more people in 
it, assuming that I know more what I'm talking about than the 
experts do, which I'm not saying I do. 

But six months, I think that's very good. The 
more the merrier. But if it's keeping some other people out 
sometime, it's just something to check on. 

MR. VAUGHN: Sure. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: One other question. 

Are you familiar with Alicia Canedo? 

MR. VAUGHN: Yes, sir, I am. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: You're familiar with her 

MR. VAUGHN: Yes, sir, I am. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Is she here? No. We can deal 
with that problem later. I was going to say that you could 
respond to what she says, but if she's not here to say anything, 
I guess you don't have to. 


1 What do you think her problem is with you? 

2 MR. VAUGHN: I think I'm just a carryover from 

3 the problem that began -- 

•; CHAIRMAN BURTON: The last one? 

5 MR. VAUGHN: Yes, sir. 

6 CHAIRMAN BURTON: Yeah, she had a beef with the 
other one. 

Witnesses in support, please, briefly. 
9 MR. NATIVIDAD: Good afternoon. My name's James 

Robert Natividad. I'm a lieutenant at Chuckawalla Valley State 

11 Prison. I'm the designee for the Correctional Supervisors 

12 Organization. 

13 I'd like to take this time to let you know that 

14 Mr. Vaughn has done an excellent job since he's been there. 

15 He's adjusted from the temperature of Tehachapi, which is cold, 

16 and which I was started at, and could understand going to a hot 
temperature of Blythe. And he seems to be dealing with it very 

18 well. 

19 He has made all those changes that he's talked 
about, and the staff are really pleased with the progress that 

21 we're making there at Chuckawalla. 

12 So, I endorse him for our warden on behalf of the 



MS. GOODMAN: My name is Mari Goodman. I'm the 
District Labor President in DLC 707, and I serve on CSEA's 
committee known as CIC. That is Correctional Institutions 


Committee. I noticed a couple of people didn't know what that 
was . 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: It's the Counter Intelligence 
Corps . 

[Laughter . ] 

MS. GOODMAN: CIC members have toured the 
facilities where these wardens have served. 

I want to mention something. A couple of weeks 
ago, Senator Burton said something that really was kind of 
profound to me. He said, you know what? I want you to talk to 
me like a friend. And I really appreciate that, because I want 
to tell you today, this is the kind of rapport that we've had 
with these two wardens, in particular Warden Yarborough and 
Mr. Vaughn. I've had the opportunity to work with them at our 
facilities, and it's easy talk to them as a friend. And we get 
mad, and we resolve. 

So, the members have sent me on behalf of CSEA to 
stand in support of the commitments that they have made. 

Mr. Hernandez, I will also go on the record to 
say yes, we are in support. 

Good luck to all three. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Thank you very much. 


MS. McDOUGAL: Good afternoon, Chairman Burton 
and Members of the Committee. My name is Dianne McDougal, 
President of the Employees Association at Chuckawalla Valley 
State Prison. 

I am pleased to appear before you today in 


support of our Warden, Tom Vaughn. Since Mr. Vaughn's arrival, 
he has been a strong supporter and participant in all of our 
activities. Whether it is cooking hamburgers for the 4th of 
July staff barbeque, when the temperature is 115 degrees, 
boiling 900 pounds of crab for our annual crab feed, delivering 
Easter baskets to 200 needy children in our community, 
distributing 200 bicycles and 2,000 toys to 500 under-privileged 
families during the holiday season, serving turkey to the entire 
staff at our all-staff holiday potluck, or helping at the local 
food kitchen, Mr. Vaughn can always be counted on. His 
willingness to be actively involved is truly appreciated. 

We have found him to be fair, honest, and 
decisive, willing to share his opinion but eager to listen to 
staff input. He is receptive to new ideas and generally 
committed to ensuring CVSP is an institution with high morale 
and job satisfaction. 

Thank you for the opportunity to address the 
Committee and express our unanimous support for Mr. Vaughn's 
confirmation . 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Thank you, ma'am. 


DR. CULTON: Good afternoon, Senator Burton, 
Committee. My names John Culton. I've been the Chief Medical 
Officer, Health Care Manager at Chuckawalla Valley State Prison 
since 1991. 

I'm here to lend my support for the confirmation 
of Mr. Vaughn as Warden. His understanding of medicine and 
health care issues is very, very complete, and his understanding 


of the desert environment and the heat involved is also very, 
very excellent. 

I'd just -- I would like to pat him on the back 
and say thanks. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Give it a shot. Thank you. 

MR. DIN: My name is Ray Din, Regional Vice 
President for CCWA, representing the local chapter at 
Mr. Vaughn's institution. 

We're here in support. We'd like to thank him 
for all his support that he has given us in that very remote, 
hot city of Blythe. 

Thank you. 


Next . 

MR. TATUM: I'm Richard Tatum, State President of 
the California Correctional supervisors Organization. 

Mr. Vaughn also worked for me as a correctional 
officer in the '70s. Along with that, he's also a personal 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Mike, could you get us his 
personnel file? 

[Laughter. ] 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: You've got a lot going, I'll 
tell you, with all these wardens. 

MR. TATUM: I'll tell you, Senator, right now 
there's 15 wardens in the state that used to work for me, 15 of 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: You trained them well. 


1 MR. TATUM: I think I did real well. 

With that, we ask for your support. 
CHAIRMAN BURTON: Thank you, sir. 
•; Next. 

MR. WILLIAMS: Good evening. My name is Ike 
6 Williams. I'm representing ABCW, Association of Black 
Correctional Workers. 

We are in support of Warden Vaughn. Like to have 
him out in the desert. He's been working with the Association 
since he's been here in all sorts of activities. We want to 

11 continue that type of cooperation as the years go on. 

12 CHAIRMAN BURTON: Thank you, sir. 

13 Next. 

14 MR. FLAHARTY: Good afternoon, Senators. I've 
appeared here before. John Flaharty, I'm a correctional 

16 sergeant at Chuckawalla Valley State Prison. I'm the ex-chapter 

17 president from the last term. 

18 Thirteen-and-a-half years I've been at 

19 Chuckawalla, we've had seven wardens; this will be the seventh. 
Out of them, five have sit at the desk and never done nothing. 
The past warden we had was a — took care of business. 

22 Mr. Vaughn drove up. We figured, here we go 

23 again. The man has walked in, taken control, and done an 
excellent job. 

2 5 We urge an aye vote for confirmation. Nobody 

wants to be in Chuckawalla because of the heat, very few. If 
he'll come down and do the job that he's done, the man deserves 
the position. 


Thank you. 


What ' s the average term for a warden at an 

MR. VAUGHN: I don't know, Senator. I know that 
in the past it was longer. I know that, for example, at CMC, I 
think they've only had five wardens since they built the place, 
and I think they've had some that have served as long as eight, 
nine, maybe ten years. 

But I think as time progresses, it gets shorter. 
It's probably three, to five, or six years now, I would think. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Idle curiosity, what do you 
think the reason was for seven in fifteen years? That's about 
two years apiece. People want to get out, or the Department 
wants them out, or what? 

MR. VAUGHN: I don't think it's the Department. 
I could offer a philosophical idea on it, and I think it's just 
that the job daily becomes more and more complex, and it becomes 
more and more of a juggling act, trying to care for the inmates 
that you're responsible for, and at the same time, care for the 
employees, deal with the facts of the budget, labor relations 
issues. It's a very complicated job. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Do any of the wardens go back 
to being officers, or lieutenants, or something, or once a 
warden you never drop back? 

MR. VAUGHN: You just fade away. 
[Laughter . ] 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Like that old barracks ballad. 


SENATOR KNIGHT: Old soldiers never die. 
CHAIRMAN BURTON: Witnesses in opposition? 
Hearing none, call the roll. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Karnette. 


Karnette Aye. Senator Knight. 


Knight Aye. Senator Romero. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Romero Aye. Senator Johnson. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Johnson Aye. Senator Burton. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Burton Aye. Five to zero. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Congratulations, Warden. 

MR. VAUGHN: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Warden Yarborough. 

MR. YARBOROUGH: Good afternoon, Senator Burton 
and distinguished Senators. My name is Mike Yarborough, Warden 
at the California Correctional Institution at Tehachapi. 

It is an honor and an opportunity to serve the 
citizens of this great state as a public servant. It is not a 
duty I take lightly. 

As a matter of introduction, I'm a native 
Californian, having received my Associate and Bachelor degrees 
in criminal justice from our junior college and state university 

My 24 years of correctional experience includes 


starting- as a correctional officer at Deuel Vocational 
Institution. During my five years as an officer, a 
correctional foundation was formed in me by some of the finest 
professionals I have ever worked with. I have developed these 
cornerstones over the years, using them as a guide to teach and 
lead the staff I have been privileged to work with. I rely upon 
this invaluable experience to this day. It is important never 
to forget where I started, to understand where I have been, 
acknowledge where I am, and have the confidence to go where I 
need to go. 

With your permission, I'd like to answer any 
questions you have about my qualifications to serve as warden. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: You're the only adult prison 
with young people in it? 

MR. YARBOROUGH: That's correct, Senator. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: There's been some comment that 
the processing of the minors or youth was very slow. 

What steps have they been taking to speed up the 
processing of the minors? 

MR. YARBOROUGH: First of all, Senator, when the 
youth offender program arrived and was placed at the prison at 
Tehachapi, Tehachapi had a Reception Center. And those 
Reception Center staff were used to process the incoming youth 
offenders . 

I have recently, in the last months, lost the 
Reception Center, and it's been replaced with a Level IV general 
population facility. I have had a challenge -- 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Due to overcrowding? 


1 MR. YARBOROUGH: Overcrowding of Level IVs, yes, 

2 and a reduction in the intake of Reception Center inmates. 

I have endeavored to address the challenge of 
processing the youthful offenders in a timeframe of less than 45 
days, and the normal processing for adult offenders is from 45 
6 to 60 days. And I have set the expectation now to process 
youthful offenders within 30 days of their arrival from the 

8 county of commitment. 

9 CHAIRMAN BURTON: You lost the Reception Center 

10 because there's prisoners sleeping in it now or what? 

11 MR. YARBOROUGH: The Reception Center was 

12 converted to a Level IV facility. 

13 CHAIRMAN BURTON: And the Reception Center was 

14 what? Where people were received; right? 

15 MR. YARBOROUGH: That's correct. 

16 CHAIRMAN BURTON: What did they do when they went 

17 in? They stayed the first while there or what? 

18 MR. YARBOROUGH: They underwent their processing, 
and then they were transferred to a prison that was appropriate 

20 for their level and case factors. 

21 CHAIRMAN BURTON: So, you don't have that, so 

22 what happens to them when they walk in? 

2 3 MR. YARBOROUGH: Are you referring to the 

24 youthful offenders? 

2 5 CHAIRMAN BURTON: Yeah, first. 

26 MR. YARBOROUGH: Well, the Reception Center 

processing requires more staff-intensive work. So, losing the 
staff that I had to process those, I no longer had the ratio of 


staff to process the incoming youthful offenders. So, that was 
a challenge. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Doesn't it make more sense to 
have these youthful offenders in a prison with a Reception 
Center? Do you think it matters? 

MR. YARBOROUGH: I don't think it matters. 

I think the original theory was placing it at 
Tehachapi, which had a 180-degree housing unit that allowed for 
separation of the youthful offenders from the adults, 
commensurate with the Welfare and Institutions Code. 

Plus, it was in fairly close proximity to Los 
Angeles County, where most of the offenders came from, to allow 
for family members to have a better chance of visiting them than 
they would at a more distant prison. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: The youthful offenders are 
segregated from the adult population? 


CHAIRMAN BURTON: I guess by virtue the fact that 
they're in a prison like that, that the crimes were violent. 

MR. YARBOROUGH: Well, we currently have a total 
of 106 youthful offenders. And the population will vary, 
depending upon those reaching their 18th birthday. 

But most of the offenders we have are violent. 
We do have some Level Is, Level lis, Level Ills, and Level IVs . 
And because they're from throughout the entire state, there are 
different levels, there are different ethnicities, competing 
gang rivalries, and the sort. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Level I is what? 


1 MR. YARBOROUGH: It's the least secure level that 

2 we have. 

-CHAIRMAN BURTON: It would seem that if somebody 
was in a Level I, why would they even bother having them in an 

5 adult prison? 

6 MR. YARBOROUGH: Well, I think that decision to 
prosecute them and try them as an adult occurred at the local 

8 jurisdiction. 

9 But once convicted as an adult and sentenced to 
state prison, they're placed in that youthful offender program 

11 until they parole or achieve their 18th birthday. 

12 One of those individuals who had been, after 
achieving 18 years of age would be transferred to a Level I 

14 facility somewhere in the state, preferably close to where they 

15 were committed. 

16 CHAIRMAN BURTON: It seems bizarre that if 

17 somebody was in a Level I, that would mean that they're less 
dangerous or less likely to escape? Less likely to do 

19 something. 


21 CHAIRMAN BURTON: To me, that makes me wonder why 
they were tried as an adult, because you'd think you'd want to 
try as adults people that are incorrigible or something. 

24 Also, just like you could have somebody doing 

something serious, or really kind of stupid once, but they're 

26 not incorrigible. 

27 What do you do with these kids? Do you have a 
program for them so when they come out, they're worse criminals 


than when they went in? 

MR. YARBOROUGH: I hope not. 


MR. YARBOROUGH: The offenders that come in who 
do not have a high school diploma or a GED — 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Most of them, I would assume? 

MR. YARBOROUGH: Do not. We enroll them in a 
high school. And we have a bona fide high school with a 
curriculum much like you would see out in Community X. 

So, those individuals that do not have a high 
school diploma are enrolled in high school. We separate the 
Level Is and lis from the Level Ills and IVs . And even within 
those levels, the competing factions, we separate those. 

We're very staff-intensive. For the 106 youthful 
offenders I currently have, we have eight teachers assigned, and 
a full-time psychologist whose sole purpose and responsibility 
is to tend to the needs of the youthful offenders. 

Once they achieve their high school diploma, of 
which we have 28 who have graduated so far, which is an 
excellent achievement on the part of our education staff, they 
are then eligible to be assigned to one of the jobs within the 
confines of our youthful offender program, a teachers aid, maybe 
a porter in the unit, until they reach 18 years of age. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Johnson. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: No questions. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Romero. 


Continuing along the lines of the question about 


Level I, Level II for the youthful offenders, you indicated that 
you separate them for the high school, Level I and II together, 
and then Level III and IV. 

4 Is that only for the high school education, or 

for all other programs and any potential interaction? 

6 MR. YARBOROUGH: That's for all interaction, 

including the academic programs. 

When they first arrive, we assess their level, 
and then we assess their case factors, do a personal interview 
with each one to determine their compatibility with the other 
youth in the program, whether they have any enemy situations. 
12 We also evaluate their prior Youth Authority 

behavior, if it exists. And if they had any disciplinary 

14 behavior, what that was. 

15 We also evaluate whether they had any gang 
affiliation, and then all those evaluations combined will 

17 determine where we place them in a program. 

But within the Level I and II, and III and IV, 

19 there may be even separate programs. 

20 And with our staff-intensive education staff, 
they do a tremendous job in addressing the educational needs of 

22 virtually all of those offenders. 

SENATOR ROMERO: You indicate in your responses 
that the average reading level of the inmates, and I don't know 
if this is for the youth included, is about the sixth grade 
level . 

First of all, could you clarify, is that the 
average for all, youth through whatever age? As well as, do you 


do any assessment before they leave the prison as far as, has 
there been a gain? Is there a demonstrated effectiveness of the 
literacy programs that you have ongoing? 

MR. YARBOROUGH: Having discussed some of the 
literacy curriculum with the teachers assigned to the youth 
offender program, I can attest that those individuals that are 
enrolled in the high school do raise their reading level. 

Whether it's measured before they reach 18 and 
move out of the program or parole, I'm not sure. 

But they're taught to study a curriculum that 
includes Shakespeare, for example, and their reading level does, 
in fact, rise while they're in the program. 

SENATOR ROMERO: For the over 18? 

MR, YARBOROUGH: The 6.3 reading average is for 
the entire institution. 

SENATOR ROMERO: And any assessment as to whether 
or not the adults demonstrate any increase in their literacy or 
reading level? 

MR. YARBOROUGH: Well, I believe that, 
institution-wide, as an inmate is enrolled in an education 
program, and they rise from what we call Adult Basic Education 
I, II, III, and on to their GED, and there will be a test to 
determine if they have reached the appropriate reading level to 
move on to the next level. 

So, before they parole, I would presume that that 
test would occur so that they could achieve a level commensurate 
with the next step. 



1 CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Knight. 

2 SENATOR KNIGHT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

It's a lot nicer weather up there; isn't it? 

4 MR. YARBOROUGH: Yes, it is, Senator. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: How are you handling your 
6 infrastructure and your maintenance, because I know that 

facility is getting old and dilapidated. What are you doing 

8 with it? 

9 MR. YARBOROUGH: Well, there are many 
infrastructure repairs that are needed. We have a list of those 
that have been submitted for consideration to our Headquarters. 

12 And as I'm sure everyone knows, with budgetary 

13 constraints, priorities must be set. We endeavor to prioritize 
our own and push for consideration of those that we feel are 

15 most important to achieve repairs on. 

16 SENATOR KNIGHT: Do you have any heating 

17 problems? 

18 MR. YARBOROUGH: Not a heating problem per se. 

19 We have a heat loop, which is an underground 

2C water supply system that does help heat the water for showers, 

21 and that was built in 1986, or '85. So, it's been under ground 

22 for many years and is deteriorating. That's one of our major 

23 repairs that needs to be made. 

24 Within the last year, we've had a need to request 
emergency repairs for that underwater loop that must transport 
water from our Level II facility, up an elevation of 400 feet, 

21 and nearly a mile in distance. 

28 CHATRMAN BURTON: Mike, maybe you could get 


this. I'm really kind of interested in youthful offenders that 
they can put in Level I. Why are they even tried as adults if 
they can be put in Level I? That's like probably for petty 
theft with a prior. 

the files. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Do you have any family here? 


I'd like to introduce my wife Brenda, my son 
Greg, and my daughter Shonda. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Witnesses in support. 

And there were several on the record earlier in 
support . 

Go ahead, ma'am. 

MAYOR TEEL: Good afternoon. My name is Mariana 
Teel. I'm the Mayor Pro Tern from the City of Tehachapi. 

And the City Council supports Mr. Yarborough as 
Mayor [sic] for CCI . 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Thank you, ma'am. 

MR. MARTINEZ: Good afternoon. I'm Nick 
Martinez. I'm the Vice President and Chief Steward for District 
Labor Council 771. 

I had the pleasure of touring Tehachapi, CCI. 
There were a couple of issues there that we brought up to Warden 
Yarborough, and we were quite impressed with the way he decided 
to -- or he took the tour of the institution that afternoon, 
looking into these issues. 

CSEA, SEIU Local 1000 gives our support to Warden 


1 Yarborough. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Thank you, sir. 

3 I don't want to hear it. 

4 [Laughter. ] 

MR. TATE: Richard Tatum, California Correctional 
6 Supervisors Organization. 

And I hope you don't hold this against him, but 

8 he also worked for me in the '70s. 

9 [Laughter.] 

10 MR. TATE: Mike's a personal friend of mine also. 

11 I will say that with these guys, they've got 

12 their job to do. We, as an organization, bump heads with them 
somewhat, but these folks, just like Mike, have integrity and 

14 truthfulness, and this is the type of people we need as wardens. 

15 Thank you. 

16 CHAIRMAN BURTON: Any witnesses in opposition? 

17 Hearing none, call the roll on the nomination. 

18 SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Karnette. 


20 SECRETARY WEBB: Karnette Aye. Senator Knight. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Knight Aye. Senator Romero. 


24 SECRETARY WEBB: Romero Aye. Senator Johnson. 

2 6 SECRETARY WEBB: Johnson Aye. Senator Burton. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Burton Aye. Five to zero. 


CHAIRMAN BURTON: Congratulations, Warden 

MR. YARBOROUGH: Thank you. 

[Thereupon this portion of the 

Senate Rules Committee hearing 

was terminated at approximately. 

2:50 P.M. ] 

— 00O00 — 






















I, EVELYN J. MIZAK, a Shorthand Reporter of the State 
of California, do hereby certify: 

That I am a disinterested person herein; that the 
foregoing transcript of the Senate Rules Committee hearing was 
reported verbatim in shorthand by me, Evelyn J. Mizak, and 
thereafter transcribed into typewriting. 

I further certify that I am not of counsel or 
attorney for any of the parties to said hearing, nor in any way 
interested in the outcome of said hearing. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 


day of 

, 2002 




Shorthand Reporter 

Additional copies of this publication may be purchased for $3.25 per copy 
(includes shipping and handling) plus current California sales tax. 

Senate Publications 

1020 N Street, Room B-53 

Sacramento, CA 95814 


Make checks payable to SENATE RULES COMMITTEE. 
Please include Stock Number 459-R when ordering. 






ROOM 113 



OCT - 2 2002 


1:34 P.M. 





ROOM 113 


WEDNESDAY, JUNE 26, 2 002 
1:34 P.M. 

Reported by- 

Evelyn J. Mizak 
Shorthand Reporter 




GREG SCHMIDT, Executive Officer 
PAT WEBB, Committee Secretary 

NETTIE SABELHAUS, Consultant on Governor's Appointments 



The Regents of the University of California 

JOHN GAMBOA, Executive Director 
Greenlining Institute 


Allen Chapel A.M.E. Church/Faith Community 

Latino Issues Forum 

American GI Forum 



Council of Asian American Business Associations 


Greenlining Institute, and also representing 

JORGE CORRALEJO, Latin Business Association 


California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce 


Sacramento Chapter 

Black American Political Association of California (BAPAC) 

Mexican American Political Association 


California Labor Federation 


Trustees, California State University 


The Regents of the University of California 

ROLAND GNAIZDA, General Counsel 

Greenlining Institute; California Hispanic Chamber of Commerce 



Proceedings 1 

Governor ' s Appointees ; 

6 The Regents of the University of California 1 

Introduction and Support by 









Background and Experience 1 

10 Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re 



Possibility of Increased Fees for 

Graduate Students 4 

13 Position on Proposition 2 09 and the 

Connerly Initiative 5 

Position on Community Outreach Programs to 
Enhance Diversity 6 

Use of Prison Funding in Budget to 

Enlarge Campuses 7 

Questions by SENATOR KNIGHT re: 

Prisons vs . Universities 7 

Position on Raising Student Fees 8 

In-state Tuition for Illegal Immigrants 9 

Questions by SENATOR KARNETTE re: 

Year-around University 9 

Distance Learning 10 


Questions by SENATOR ROMERO re: 

Status of Custom Designed California 

Test instead of SAT I 11 

UC's Work to Make Sure High Schools 
Offer Classes Needed for Testing on 
SAT II 11 

Witnesses in Support: 

JOHN GAMBOA, Executive Director 

Greenlining Institute 12 

Commendation by CHAIRMAN BURTON 13 


Allen Chapel African Methodist Episcopal Church 14 


Latino Issues Forum 15 


American GI Forum 16 

Commendation by CHAIRMAN BURTON 17 


Council of Asian American Business Associations 18 


Latin Business Association 19 


President, California Hispanic Chambers of 

Commerce 19 


Sacramento Chapter 

Black American Political Association of California ... 20 


Mexican American Political Association 21 


California Labor Federation 22 






























Motion to Confirm 23 

Committee Action 23 


Trustees, California State University 23 

Introduction and Support by 


Background and Experience 24 

Witness in Support : 


California Labor Federation 26 

Motion to Confirm 26 

Committee Action 27 


The Regents of the University of California 27 

Introduction and Support by 


Opening Statement 2 8 

Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Importance of Student Diversity 2 9 

Questions by SENATOR KNIGHT re: 

Preference Given to Undocumented, 

Illegal Aliens 30 

Questions by SENATOR ROMERO re: 

Perception that UC Is Inaccessible to 

Working People 32 

Questions by SENATOR KARNETTE re: 

Preparation for Position 34 

VI 1 

Witnesses in Support; 

JOHN GAMBOA, Executive Director 

Greenlining Institute 12 


Allen Chapel African Methodist Episcopal Church 14 


Latino Issues Forum 15 


American GI Forum 16 


Council of Asian American Business Associations 18 


Latin Business Association 19 


President, California Hispanic Chambers of 

Commerce 19 


Sacramento Chapter 

Black American Political Association of California ... 20 


Mexican American Political Association 21 


California Labor Federation 22 

ROLAND GNAIZDA, General Counsel 

Greenlining Institute 34 

Motion to Confirm 35 

Committee Action 35 

Termination of Proceedings 36 

Certificate of Reporter 37 

— 00O00-- 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Richard Blum, member of the 
Regents, has to catch an airplane. So, it's been agreed to by 
Mr. Icaza that Richard Blum could come first. 

I would just like to make a brief introduction 
from the Chair that Dick Blum is my constituent and has been a 
long time friend. 

Who wrote this, you? He's a true Rennaissance 

He is a successful businessman, active in a wide 
range of things. He's a graduate of the university. He's been 
on many boards, profit-making and nonprofit. He has been a 
contributor, both emotionally and intellectually and financially 
to the Board of Regents. 

Richard, we welcome you to the Committee. 

MR. BLUM: Thank you, Senator Burton. 

Ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much for 
having me here today. I consider it a great honor and privilege 
to have been appointed to the Board of Regents. 

It's hard to reflect that it's been this many 
years, but I have, next year, a continuous association with the 
university for 50 years. I started Berkeley in 1953. I 
received my BA and MBA from Berkeley as well, also worked on a 
Ph.D. program in economics. 

My background is that I was born and raised in 
San Francisco. I went through the public school system in San 
Francisco, and enrolled in Berkeley when they were upset because 

the registration fee, as they called it in those days, had gone 
to $75 a semester, which I think was up from zero. 

And I've been really involved with the Business 
School since I left, serving on its Board of Advisors, and have 
been a contributor really to the Business School over the last 
several years because, despite the fact that a number of us 
built almost like a new campus for the Business School, we have 
been losing professors to places like Stanford. So, a couple of 
us have gotten together and contribute a million dollars a year 
to help with salaries. 

I think what bothers me most, and what I'm most 
interested in as a Regent, is the fact that the equal playing 
field has become less and less equal over a period of time. 

Now, as I discussed yesterday with Senator 
Knight, not everybody necessarily wants a degree from the 
University of California system. But my attitude is, those who 
want to have a degree, we ought to do everything possible to 
help them. 

So, the fact that the university system now 
reaches back not only into the community colleges and helps to 
transfer people through the dual program, or just in general, up 
after a year, really after a couple of years, into the 
university system, I think that's good. 

I think it's even better to know that we're now 
reaching back into K through 12, because I think with a lot of 
these kids, if they're not doing well early on, the chances of 
them moving ahead are diminished. 

So, one of the things that I think is also -- we 

need more of, although the university system has, I think, done 
quite well compared to others in subsidizing students who cannot 
afford the tuition or room and board, and particularly I think 
Senator Burton was behind the Cal Grant Program, which I think 
helps a great deal, I am opposed to certainly any near-term 
increase in tuition. If you want to ask me questions later, I 
can even explain to you why I think financially it doesn't make 
any sense. 

By way of background, I'm an investment banker. 
I've been involved, as has been mentioned, with many corporate 
boards and many nonprofit institutions. A lot of it has to do 
with philanthropic work, both domestically and internationally, 
including being on the Board of the Carter Center and having 
started a foundation 20 years ago called the American Himalayan 
Foundation, which is involved in 75 projects at any given time 
in the Himalayan region. 

And the reason I bring that up is, we have also 
built over 100 schools and probably subsidized more than that in 
the region. And we have seen how you can take people from even 
the most primitive backgrounds, in some cases where you had 
people whose parents carried loads up and down the mountains in 
the Mount Everest region, Sherpas, for a dollar or two a day, 
and had some of their children become -- go through medical 
school over here, become foresters, pilots, and so forth. 

So, I'm a great believer in trying to help 
however you can, regardless of background. 

One of the issues that I feel strongly about, and 
my wife, who I think you know, is Senator Feinstein, has to deal 

with continuously is that where we need to bring up the lower 
end, and bring kids up as much as possible. 

Another issue is that you're not getting enough 
people with graduate degrees. And continuously, my wife's 
office has applications from major corporations in Silicon 
Valley saying, we can't find U.S. citizens to fill these jobs. 
And so, I think we need to do a better job with that. 

I also feel very strongly that we -- one of the 
great reasons that this state has moved ahead is because of the 
University of California system. You wouldn't have Silicon 
Valley or San Diego, or some of these other pockets of 
opportunity and growth economically doing what they were doing. 

In any event, I can go on for a long time. I'm 
looking at Johnny; he wants me to shut up, so I will answer any 
questions . 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Thank you, Mr. Blum. 

There's a couple questions. Issues have been 
raised with me with graduates from the university and others 
that it would seem to me that we can't do enough, either by 
grants or other things, to help students get into the undergrad 
thing, and see what we can do about keeping the so-called fees, 
as opposed to tuition, reasonable. 

But do you see whether or not, when you get into 
the graduate thing, where people are going to be moving into 
fairly, you know, lawyers, doctors, higher paid positions, that 
possibly a way to help out the university is to have increased 
fees, or whatever, for those in graduate school, understanding 
that if people are of modest or limited means, then there should 

be, like, scholarships and grants available? Is that something 
that the Regents ever kick around or think about? 

MR. BLUM: A, I don't know whether they have or 
not. I've only been to two Board of Regents meetings. 

But B, they should. 

One of the things that I think is relatively new 
in the last decade is that UC, UCLA, and the rest of campuses 
are actually out trying to raise private endowment money. In 
the old days, if you asked somebody to contribute to something, 
one of the schools in the UC system, the answer was, "Excuse me, 
I paid my state taxes." I think people now understand that 
that's not enough. 

So, I really think you have to find ways to 
finance people that want to go through, particularly something 
like medicine. If a student himself has to pay for all that, 
and even if there ' re loans, they wind up having debts of perhaps 
a couple hundred thousand dollars before they even get started, 
which I think, frankly, has to discourage a lot of people from 
pursuing those professions. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: What's your position on the 
diversity, affirmative action, Prop. 209, and now the Connerly 
initiative, as it would affect the University of California? 

MR. BLUM: Well, you know, I certainly didn't 
vote for 209. 

I'm happy to know that the Board Of Regents has 
taken a position against it. I now understand there's a further 
potential Connerly initiative that would prohibit the collection 
of information as to different groups in our society, 

economically, culturally, ethnically. I think it's a terrible 

This day and age, one of the things that moves 
this society and this world ahead is information. And to 
prohibit -- to have a law that says you can't collect 
information that says how well this group is either doing or not 
doing so that we know where we are in this complex world, is 
something that doesn't make any sense. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: There have been some 
approaches, I think. Money was put into budget, I think, first 
under Governor Wilson, which he may or may not have took out, 
and then under Governor Davis, which again, I'm not sure what 
happened, but to have funds for outreach into the various 
communities to try to get, with affirmative action either banned 
or eliminated, but to try to get a greater diversity of students 
at our campuses. That's something -- 

MR. BLUM: Absolutely. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: — that you would support? 

MR. BLUM: I'm for any reasonable program that 
helps our society, allow everyone an equal opportunity to move 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: How about, there's a concern 
here that the campuses, although I don't want anybody in the 
Central Valley to hear it, but I have great doubts about the 
wisdom of the Merced campus. I only wish I owned a strip mall 
near it. 

In any event, an improvement in, you know, we 
have about nine campuses, and then there's Merced, and to try to 


increase, you know, possibly even doubling the number of 
university campuses, which we fund through bonds also. There's 
been very strong movement in the Legislature, a moratorium on 
prisons of late, and use that funding that would go there into 
the university, enlarging the campuses. 

I assume that's a supportable position of the 

MR. BLUM: I would say, am I in favor of less 
prisons and more campuses, I think so. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Man of courage. 

Senator Knight. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

If we have less prisons, what do we do with the 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Send them to college. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: It's a rhetorical question. 

MR. BLUM: With all due respect, Senator, I 
didn't say we should have less prisons. 

I just say what I'm saying is that we should 
allocate our resources more toward trying to help people and 
educate them. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: I understand that, but I think 
we still have to have a prison or two. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: We're going to put one in 
Palmdale instead of the Veteran's Home. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: Hey, we've got one in Lancaster. 
That's only eight miles away. It's close enough. 

MR. BLUM: I didn't suggest we should close any 




We are having a significant fiscal problem this 
year, the state is, budgetary problems, et cetera. 

Did I hear you that you were not in favor of 
raising fees -- 

MR. BLUM: Well, let me -- 

SENATOR KNIGHT: -- for students? 

MR. BLUM: Let me explain, at least the best I 
understand it, the economics of tuitions. 

The university has a budget of about $3.2 
billion. About $650 million of it comes from tuitions. 

If you really look at -- let's just for the sake 
of argument say we're going to raise tuitions 10 percent, which 
would certainly disadvantage an awful lot of people if we did 
it. So, that's 10 percent of $650 million is $65 million. Half 
of that doesn't get to the university because some of it goes to 
help people with their tuitions and expenses because of the 
increase; some of the goes for other activities which I can't 
enumerate . 

So, you wind up with, let's say, $32-33 million. 
That's one percent of the entire budget of the University of 
California . 

So, you have to say to yourself, aside from how 
you feel philosophically or politically about these issues, is 
it really worth going through, having the burden of a 10 percent 
increase to get a one percent increase in the amount of the 
money that you can spend on the system? 

So, that's why I'm against it. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: I can understand that, and it's 
probably a futile exercise to raise the tuition. 

But we also provide tuition for illegal 
immigrants similar to in-state tuition, and we charge people 
from out of state out-of-state tuition. Is there inequity 

MR. BLUM: First of all, I think that the way I 
understand it, that the out-of-state tuition is substantially 
higher than that for residents, and I think it ought to continue 
to be that way. 

Frankly, if we need to raise tuitions at all, it 
ought to be for out-of-state. I think we need to take care of 
our own people here. 

As far as immigration is concerned, I think we 
ought to take care of the people we're legally responsible for. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: Illegal immigration I'm talking 
about, not immigration. 

MR. BLUM: I don't know what the rules of law are 
on that. 


MR. BLUM: I think if people aren't legal 
residents here, then they shouldn't be allowed. 


CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Karnette. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: Would operating the university 
year around, would that solve some of the problems that you see? 

MR. BLUM: I think so. I mean, most businesses 


work 12 months a year. I don't know why the university system 
can't do the same. 

I mean, you have billions of dollars of 
infrastructure in terms of all these campuses, and equipment, 
and buildings, you know. So, I don't see why a lot of them 
should be left dormant in a couple months of the year. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: It would cost more, I suppose. 
It would seem to me it would. Maybe not so much if you balanced 
other conditions. 

MR. BLUM: Well, if you're going to go from 
160,000 students up to 220,000 students, which is what they tell 
me are the projections, you've got to say to yourself, what's 
the most economical way to do it? Do you want to double the 
number of campuses, as some suggest? Do you want to build on 
existing campuses, which I think probably makes more sense 
because there's a lot of room, but then there's also a lot of 
capacity in the existing infrastructure that's all ready there 
if you use them 12 months a year. 

So, I'd be in favor of more — 

SENATOR KARNETTE: And using technology somewhat, 
distance learning, and weekend? 

MR. BLUM: I think distance learning is doing 
some amazing things, as you and I talked about before. 

We gave, through the American Himalayan 
Foundation, gave a scholarship to a young Sherpa who lives in a 
very remote part of Nepal, but has, nonetheless, has 
electricity. He was able to get a Master's degree in forestry 
by distance learning. 


So, I think if we can reach that far, we can 
certainly take care of a lot of people here who aren't able, for 
whatever reason, to get to the campuses. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Romero. 


President Atkinson has proposed to the Academic 
Senate the discontinuation of the use of the SAT I. That's a 
move that I strongly support. 

It raises other questions, whether or not a sort 
of custom designed test could be developed for California. 

What's the status of that? 

And also, what is the UC doing to perhaps make 
sure that high schools throughout California are offering the 
classes that are needed for testing on the SAT II, which still 
would remain, and I think it's a bit more predictive of 
students' abilities? 

MR. BLUM: I wish I was as well informed as maybe 
you think I am on those issues, but let me try. 

One, I have talked to Dick Atkinson about his 
views on this. He's an educator of great renown, and so I have 
no reason to believe that his views on this issue aren't 
correct . 

Two is that, you know, I think of sort of the 
battle days when, you know, you lived or died by a test or by 
whatever your grades were. And I think to the extent that 
people take a more qualitative view of how you let -- allow 
people to enter the University of California system, taking into 
consideration, you know, a lot of things as have been suggested 


that you ought to look at, for example, you might find somebody 
in the Hispanic community would perhaps know more about his own 
history and his ancestry of where ever the family came from than 
perhaps American history. 

I think, nonetheless, you have to reach back into 
high schools and say, "Okay, look. This is what you've got to 
learn if you want to get into the UC system." 

So, I'm glad to hear that this is now going on. 
I don't think until recently there was that kind of reach. So, 
if it's SAT II plus these other activities, the little I know, 
it sounds like it's probably the right direction. 


CHAIRMAN BURTON: I see no family with you. 

MR. BLUM: My wife's otherwise employed. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Witnesses in support? 

MR. GAMBOA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

My name is John Gamboa, and I'm the Executive 
Director of the Greenlining Institute, an organization of close 
to 40 minority organizations across the state, a coalition. 

Normally we would oppose the addition of two 
additional white, wealthy Regents. We would oppose it simply 
because it would not fulfill the letter of the Constitution, 
which requires diversity on the Regents. 

However, we believe this is an exception in these 
two gentlemen that are up today. The exception is because we 
feel they are going to fulfill the promise of what diversity is, 
the promise of what is required under the Constitution, and the 
reasons for the requirement for diversity on that. 


This is quite a divergence from our support or 
feelings on the Regents. But in this particular case, given the 
testimony that Mr. Blum has given today, and the questions that 
you asked of him, I think that we would urge you to support 
these appointments on it. 

There are factors, though, that question this. 
And the factors that make us question the appointments are not 
here on this, but the process that was done. What's happening 
is, we have an appearance in the state that government is for 
sale. The appearance comes, rightfully or wrongfully, the 
appearance has been wealthy contributors make contributions to 
the campaigns, and then later are given appointments. It 
undermines the integrity of the people that get those 
appointments, and it does today on it. 

So, we call that to your attention. We feel that 
in the future, those kind of factors should be taken into 

I want to thank you for the time. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Well, I want to thank you. 

And the Committee, especially under lead of 
Senator Romero, has been very concerned about the issue that you 
raise. I know that I have made that clear to the Governor's 
office, as has Senator Romero and Senator Karnette and others. 

As I talked to Mr. Gnaizda and others, I'm 
pleased that you found the character and integrity of the two 
Regents to be such as you could be supportive of them, because I 
felt it wasn't fair to them to suffer because of, I think, 
dereliction in some areas on the part of the appointing power in 


not reaching out to more diversity. 

So one, I want you to know that we share your 
concern . 

Two, I want to commend you and your organization 
for your ability to look beyond basically the stereotypes that 
you were seeing, and look into the minds and the hearts of both 
of these people and find out that they are going to be Regents 
pushing for the type of positions that all of us embrace. 

So, I want to thank you for your testimony, and, 
I think, congratulate you for your vision on these appointments, 
sir . 

MR. GAMBOA: Thank you. That's the nicest you've 
ever been to me. 

[Laughter . ] 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Have I ever seen you before? 

Yes, sir. 

REVEREND WILLIAMS: Thank you to Senator Burton 
and the honorable constituents of this Committee. 

I am the Reverend Cleveland Williams, Pastor of 
Allen Chapel African Methodist Episcopal Church, located in 
northern Sacramento, Del Paso Heights. 

I've come today to speak for the confirmation in 
a nonpolitical manner for the confirmation of Mr. Blum to the 
Board of Regents of the University of California. 

I represent a component of the community of 
faith. As a member of the African Methodist Episcopal Church, 
we have three churches in the area, we come simply to say that 
we believe that Mr. Blum is a person of character. He has 


integrity. He has a commitment to education, and we believe 
that he is one who is open to consider all aspects of diversity. 

Therefore, it is our high recommendation that he 
be confirmed for the full term on the California Board of 
Regents for the University of California. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Thank you, sir. 

Other witnesses in support. 

MR. BLUM: Just to make sure that there isn't a 
conflict of interest here, I am on the Board of an A.M.E. 
church, but not the one of Reverend Williams. Full disclosure. 


MS. VALDEZ: Good afternoon. This is my first 
time testifying, so I hope I'm not too nervous for everybody. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: It's okay. Take your time. 

MS. VALDEZ: My name is Leticia Valdez. I am 
representing the Latino Issues Forum, a nonprofit public policy 
and advocacy institute in San Francisco. 

Latino Issues Forum supports the confirmation of 
Regent appointees Saban and Blum. Saban and Blum have the 
potential to adequately represent the California population. We 
hope that Saban and Blum have the fortitude to contribute value 
and social consciousness to the people and the students of 
California, in effect, to the future of California. 

I say this not only as an LIF representative, but 
also as a graduate student at UC Berkeley. And as a student, I 
hope that in the future, I am not the only Latina in my 
department to represent my community. 

According to the 2000 U.S. Census, Latinos make 


up 32 percent of California. However, there are only 4 of 26 
Regents to represent this population. In the future, LIF would 
like to see the selection of the Regents more closely reflect 
the economic, cultural, and social diversity of the state, 
including ethnic minorities and women, that's a quote, as 
clearly stated in the California Constitution. 

At LIF, we are well aware that there is a large 
pool of qualified candidates that you can draw from, that is, 
the Governor. We invite the Governor to contact us to help in 
the search for future Regents. 

That's it. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Thank you very much, ma'am. 
Appreciate it. 

Next, sir. 

MR. AVILA: Good afternoon. I'm Leo Avila. I'm 
a member of the American GI Forum, a Hispanic veterans group 
that has made the education of our children one of the primary 
concerns because we feel that many of our problems can be 
alleviated or totally resolved by a quality education. 

I am very pleased, and thank you, Mr. Chairman, 
for the questions that you posed of the gentleman beside me. 

And I am pleased with your responses to the 
questions, because I think that we need Regents that are 
sensitive to the needs of our community and will be willing to 
undertake those efforts that will increase the opportunity for 
our young people to be able to attend the University of 
California and gain the education that is vital to become the 
leaders in our state. 


Our population is growing, and we need a 
representation at all levels that will be truly representative 
of our young people. 

However, I am concerned about some of the recent 
appointments that have been made by our Governor. And it 
appears that -- the Regent positions appear to be for sale, and 
that bothers me. It bothers me because if that is going to be 
the criteria for being named to a position on the Board of 
Regents, the chances of people of color become greatly 
diminished because we simply cannot match the political 
contributions that seem to be a criteria. And that bothers me, 
and I hope that that is taken into consideration. 

I thank you for listening to me. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I thank you again. 

As I said to earlier speakers, we're aware of the 
lack of diversity in the process. And I think, again, members 
of Greenlining are to be commended for looking beyond as many 
people we'd like to have look beyond the stereotypes they have 
of people of color, to look beyond the stereotype of people of 
color and wealth to see that they are going to contribute to the 
system; they are going to do the right thing, and they are going 
to be valuable allies. 

I believe the hearing today will clearly send a 
message, hopefully, as I see the Los Angeles by-God Times is 
writing furiously, to the appointing power that there are going 
to be in the future some problems. And Senator Romero has made 
that very clear to the administration. 

I think we were all very fortunate that these two 

people are people of high caliber and we were able to get beyond 
that . 

Again, I commend you, sir. 

MR. AVILA: I thank you, and I appreciate your 
comments . 

Lots of luck. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Other witnesses in support? 

MS. CHENG: Good afternoon. My name is Susan 
Cheng, and I'm here today to represent the Council of Asian 
American Business Associations. 

CABA supports the appointments of Richard Blum 
and Haim Saban. We believe them to be very qualified 
individuals who will serve the Board of Regents well. 

Having said that, however, we still must raise 
the larger concern, as raised by previous speakers, that the 
Board of Regents needs to reflect the diversity, the broad 
diversity, of the state. And that the Governor should abstain 
from his appointment strategy, which appears to reward political 
appointments to wealthy political contributors. 

We believe that access to higher education 
opportunities for underserved minorities is critical to the 
economic vitality of the state. But we are willing to place our 
confidence in both new Regent appointees, but they must 
demonstrate a commitment to ensuring a reinstating of 
affirmative action, aggressive support for diversity in all its 
forms, including a diverse student body and faculty in both 
undergraduate and graduate student bodies at every campus of UC, 
and as well, to publicly denounce fellow Regent Ward Connerly's 


Racial Privacy Initiative. 

We urge you to support these two nominations in 
light of these things that I've raised. 

Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Thank you very much, ma'am, and 
my same comments. 

Witnesses in support. 

MR. AGUILAR: Good afternoon. My name is Orson 
Aguilar. I'm here representing myself as an alumni of the UC 
system, but also Jorge Corralejo, who couldn't be here, but is a 
Board member for the Latin Business Association. 

Not to sound redundant, we also feel and share 
some of the similar views that have been stated before me. 

But I'd just like to say that we're very pleased 
with the questions you asked, Senator Burton, and definitely 
even more pleased with Mr. Blum's responses. We'd just like to 
say, we look forward to working with the new two UC candidates 
on some of the issues that were discussed, such as diversity, 
making sure that underserved children get the access to attend a 
university if that's what they want to do. 

With that, we'd just like to say we support the 
new Regents, and thank you for your time. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Thank you very much, sir. 

Next. Come on, ma'am. 

MS. YBARRA: Good afternoon. My name is Megan 
Ybarra, speaking on behalf of Melinda Guzman Moore, President of 
the California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce. 

The California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce 


oins the Latino community in welcoming Richard Blum and Haim 
Saban to the UC Board of Regents as new leaders with the 
potential to effectively represent the new majority of 
California, comprised of minority groups historically excluded 
from the UC system. We look to Regents Blum and Saban to 
publicly oppose Ward Connerly's Racial Privacy Initiative. 
Specifically, we ask that Regents Blum and Saban join Wesson and 
Bustamante in calling for a vote in opposition to the Ward 
Connerly initiative at the next Board of Regents meeting. 

The California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce 
looks forward to your representation and to your leadership. 

Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Thank you very much, ma'am. 

Next . 

MR. CLEMENTS: Thank you. My name is David 
Clements. I am the President of the Sacramento Chapter of the 
Black American Political Association of California, better known 
as BAPAC. 

As President of the Sacramento Chapter, we 
support and recommend to you positively to affirm the nomination 
of Richard Blum as a University of California Regent. 

BAPAC is a statewide organization made up of 
African Americans primarily. We have 55 chapters and over 
60,000 members. Our people support nominations that enhance 
human rights and civil rights, and we feel Mr. Blum's nomination 
embodies that concept. 

There have been many people of color who have 
purported themselves to be knowledgeable of human rights and 


civil rights that have quieted the voice, that voice, and we 
feel that this nomination is one that can awaken that voice 
again and bring equality to the admissions policies of the 
University of California. 

So, we feel that those persons must understand 
the Constitutional rights of all people, and these people should 
be people of merit, and people who have demonstrated that in 
their professional lives over the years. We certainly think 
that Mr. Blum has done that. 

So, thank you very much. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Thank you, sir. 

Ma ' am. 

MS. VERDUZCO: Good afternoon. My name is Sonia 
Verduzco, and I am speaking today on behalf of Ben Benavidez of 
the Mexican American Political Association and as myself, a 
recent graduate of UC Santa Cruz, having just graduated two 
weeks ago. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: Congratulations. 

MS. VERDUZCO: Thank you very much. 

I wanted to just, without reiterating what 
everyone else said, two weeks ago, I walked across the stage at 
the commencement ceremony, looked out to the audience, and saw 
my family there. You can imagine, I was very proud, especially 
at the fact that they were one of very few minority families 
sitting in the audience. 

So, what I would like to ask Regent Blum and also 
for Saban, and to the Committee as well, to please consider that 
the next 12 years that you serve as Regent, the decisions you 


make will have very serious impacts on the higher education of 
the State of California. 

And I ask you, one, will those decisions be the 
ones that open or close the doors to people like myself? Will 
my four younger brothers and sisters also have the same 
opportunity to be admitted to the UC system as I was? And will 
there still be programs in place that will be dedicated to their 
retention and success? 

Will you also be dedicated to making sure that 
other students have the opportunity to be mentored and supported 
by faculty and staff that can speak to their experience, and 
that can represent them? 

I think that we definitely support your 
appointment to the Board of Regents. 

And also, if you would please consider the issue 
of students whose documentation status might still be 
questionable in the process, because currently, my understanding 
is that undocumented students are not allowed to attend the 
University. And I have met very many that have a love in their 
heart to further their education and to help the rest of the 
State of California. 

Thank you very much. 


Other witnesses in support? 

MR. POLASKI: Chairman, Committee, Art Polaski, 
California Labor Federation. 

I know Mr. Blum to be a man of wisdom and 
integrity. We support. And we look forward to both appointees 


being great leaders to make this university continue to be a 
great higher education for all working class people of color and 
poor . 

Thank you very much. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Your support goes to both 
Regents, Art? 


CHAIRMAN BURTON: Any other witnesses in support? 

Witnesses in opposition? 

I'd like to move the nomination. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Karnette. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Karnette Aye. Senator Knight. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Knight Aye. Senator Romero. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Romero Aye. Senator Burton. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Burton Aye. Four to zero. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Congratulations, Richard. 
Catch your plane. 

MR. BLUM: Thank you very much. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: The next, Ricardo Icaza, State 

For those of us that are old enough, it will 
always be the State College system to me. 

SENATOR ROMERO: Senator Burton, Members, it's 
my great honor to bring to the Committee to introduce and to 


request confirmation for Rick Icaza, a dear friend of mine and 
for many in Los Angeles County as President of the L.A. County 
Federation of Labor. 

I have to just tell you that his very first day 
on the job as a CSU Trustee, he was greeted by bus loads of 
faculty members protesting at the Chancellor's office in Long 
Beach. I put my picket sign down for a moment, went over and 
greeted him and welcomed him, and then got my picket back up. 
It was sort of a baptism by fire. 

Soon after that, we did get the contract settled. 

So, he's widely respected. I think in 
particular, people know him as somebody who has fought hard for 
the members that he represents, not only for wages and working 
conditions, but for access to educational opportunities, the 
opportunity to have greater education so that they can improve 
their job skills, and to move up, and to attain the American 

So, it's my great honor to be able to introduce 
him and to ask for your confirmation today. 


We have your statement that we'll make part of 
the record, so if you just want to briefly summarize. 

MR. ICAZA: Thank you very much, and thank you, 
Senator . 

I would like to state, first of all, I had an 
opportunity to meet with each individual group this morning 
representing the Committee. One thing I learned was to be 
brief. Senator Burton, I think you don't like to hear too much. 


CHAIRMAN BURTON: Patience is my long suit. 
[Laughter. ] 

MR. ICAZA: My father came from Mexico in the 
'20s. He was deported by the Mexican government because he was 
a journalist in Hermosillo. He apparently was writing the wrong 
things, and so they asked him to leave. 

I think of all the things that have happened to 
me, I think that's probably one of the most significant things. 

But probably more defining was the opportunity to 
go to UCLA. And I believe the reason why I'm here today is 
because I had that opportunity. 

My wife is a graduate from UC -- I mean San Diego 
-- no, actually Cal State Dominguez. She's got her Masters in 
early childhood development. My other daughter graduated from 
Cal Berkeley and she's currently an attorney with Lathem and 
Watkins. My other daughter currently is going to Long Beach 
State, going for her credential. 

I understand the importance of education, and the 
fact that the Legislators and the citizens have produced this 
tremendous, magnificent system, and I would like to be able to 
contribute, because I know the value of it. I believe that it's 
imperative that we have an opportunity for access and be able to 
have opportunities where the cost is affordable, and I would 
like to work for those issues. 

And certainly, the fact that we find there is a 
tremendous influx of different people coming on to the system, 
and I'd like to work to attain the ability to have people be 
able to go and become qualified for that purpose. 


Actually, my statement pretty much fills in what 
I'd like to say. If there's any questions, I'd be happy to 
answer them. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Knight. Senator 
Karnette. Senator Romero. 

You are the first person ever to escape a 
question from Senator Romero. 

MR. ICAZA: It's amazing. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: She introduced you. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: Because she picketed against 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Witnesses in support. You're 
just here for morale support, Miguel? 

MR. POLASKI: Art Polaski, California Labor 
Federation, know of Mr. Icaza, a man of wide experience, and 
strong knowledge. And it is important that the working class be 
represented on institutions of higher learning. This man does 
it and will do it well. We support. 

Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Conditioned upon reaf filiation? 
[Laughter. ] 


CHAIRMAN BURTON: Do you want to go out and meet 
with Art in the hall and come back? 

MR. ICAZA: Yes, we'll meet afterwards. 
[Laughter. ] 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Witnesses in opposition? 
Hearing none, call the roll. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Karnette. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Karnette Aye. Senator Knight. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Knight Aye. Senator Romero. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Romero Aye. Senator Burton. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Burton Aye. Four to zero. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Congratulations. 

MR. ICAZA: Thank you very much. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Next Regent, Haim Saban. I'd 
like to make the introduction. 

I've known Haim for many years as a friend and as 
a philanthropist. He and his wife have been strong supporters 
of several educational programs, including Adopt a School 
Program. He established the Saban Center for Middle East Policy 
at Brookings. 

He does help represent although a different 
diversity, a diversity in California, having been an immigrant. 
Has worked very hard to be successful in what he does. 

He understands and is committed to helping 
families who need help in the UC system. And he's committed to 
continuing it as a very top learning system. 

I'd just like to say, not the second but I guess 
it was the third time I met Mrs. Saban, we were having dinner, 
and he's telling me how many people call him about a variety of 
business issues and philanthropic issues, and other. And he 


said, "If your name isn't on my roladex or on the computer, you 
can't get through." 

So, I thought about that, and two days -- you 
probably don't remember this, but I do because it was such a 
thrilling moment -- but anyway, two days later I called his 
office and asked if he was in. 

They said, "Who's calling?" 

I said, "John Burton." And I said immediately, 
"I'm not on the computer, I'm not roladex, but I was at one 
lunch and two dinners with Mr. Saban, so I think he'll take the 

He got on the phone and said, "What can I do for 

And I said, "Absolutely nothing. I just wanted 
to see if I could break through your security." 

MR. SABAN: I confirm this to be a true story. 
[Laughter. ] 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Anyway, please open. 

MR. SABAN: Thank you very much, ladies and 
gentlemen. It's a great pleasure to be here. 

My wife Sharon and I have been involved directly 
and indirectly in supporting various educational institutions. 
If I'm confirmed today, I hope to be able to bring the positive 
and constructive impact on the UC institution. I really look 
forward, and I'm very excited about this opportunity that was 
given to me. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Maybe you're the guy with a 
plane to catch. 


You heard the questions about diversity, 
outreach, and also the Connerly initiative, and the comments 
made by Mr. Blum on that. And the comments, I think, made by 
the representatives of the great cross-section of Greenlining, 
who made their support for you known, but also their concerns 
about these issues. 

I think it would just be helpful if you could 
briefly address your viewpoint on the issues, the importance of 
diversity within the students. 

And I think the most telling thing was the young 
lady who just graduated, and, you know, she looked out. There 
weren't a hell of a lot of parents who looked like hers. 

I think also, in a comment by Senator Knight 
about the prisons, that I think very few college graduates find 
themselves in prison unless they were S&L people or accountants 
now . 

[Laughter . ] 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: There's not a lot of them 
involved in drive-by shootings or crimes of violence. 

So I think to me, education is the mobility; 
ticket up and out. Maybe you could just comment on that. 

MR. SABAN: Well, actions speak louder than 
words, and my wife and my support over the years of different 
education institutions should be an indication of how important 
we believe education to be. That's point number one. 

As far as diversity goes, I believe that all of 
our institutions should reflect what the population of our state 
is. And I know this is a high mountain to climb, but it's a 


mountain we all have an obligation to climb, and I intend to 
support and work very hard to have our institutions reflect the 
diversity of the population of the State of California. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Knight. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: I didn't know he was through 
with the answers there. 

I agree with the concept of allowing as many 
students as are capable of getting into the universities to get 
there. And if they are capable, and they have the ability, then 
we ought to help the students along. 

But I guess I'm concerned more about giving 
preference to undocumented, illegal aliens, as opposed to 
citizens of this country who happen to be from out of state. I 
don't know that that's fair. 

What do you think? 

MR. SABAN: What was the question? 

SENATOR KNIGHT: Do you think we should give 
preference in terms of allowing illegal immigrants, 
undocumented, in-state tuition as opposed to out-of-state 
tuition fees? 

MR. SABAN: You're asking me an immigration 
question, and I'm no immigration specialist. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: No, it's not an immigration 

It's a question of, there are people here who are 
undocumented, who have attended schools here, but they're still 
undocumented, and we are providing for in-state tuition as 
opposed to out-of-state tuition. 


CHAIRMAN BURTON: If they live in the state, they 
get in-state tuition. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: Undocumented. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Who live in state. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: Yeah, but they're still 
undocumented immigrants. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Living in state, so they get 
in-state tuition. And if they're undocumented out-of-state, 
they would then pay out-of-state tuition. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: Yes. We've had legislation on 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Whatever happened to it? 

SENATOR KNIGHT: I think it passed; didn't it? 

SENATOR KARNETTE: If they attended all schools 
all their lives, and came here when they were two, yes, we did. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: In fact, I do recall that, 
because what they did is, they implemented the policy that 
George W. Bush had as Governor of Texas. 

[Laughter . ] 

SENATOR KNIGHT: You know I'm not from Texas. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Could have fooled me. 

MR. SABAN : I'd like to give this some more 
thought . 

But if you ask me for a knee-jerk reaction, I 
will say that if they are in this country, I'd rather have them 
in the schools than out on the streets. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: I guess my point is that we are 
obligated to provide them with an education, that's correct, 


because they're here, just because they're here. And we have 
that obligation under law to do that. 

But we don't have an obligation to provide them 
with a higher education. And to give them preference over 
citizens of the United States I don't believe is correct. 

It's something to think about. 

MR. SABAN: It's something to think about. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Romero. 


I would just that say that I very much 
appreciated the comments that were made earlier. I think it's 
been a very productive conversation. 

You and I had an opportunity to meet in my office 
and talk about policies related to the UC. One area of interest 
that I have as well is, in terms of diversity and access, also 
really for working class kids to have the opportunity. For kids 
who, like myself, grew up on the other side of the tracks, and 
who basically were told we'd never get to college. 

The UC system has often times been looked at as 
this beacon of higher education that's not accessible to working 
class kids, to people who have to have jobs. 

What is the UC doing? Or, as your role as a 
Regent, because I know you've only been to a couple of meetings 
now, given your background, and also where you started from, and 
we had talked about you not having a college education, yet 
being successful, what would you like to see the UC do so that 
that perception of the UC being not accessible to people who 
have to work, full-time, part-time, can we think about evening 


classes, weekend classes? 

What thoughts might you have to help push the UC 
to open the doors to everyday people who have to work for a 
living, and yet who can qualify and should be able to access the 
University of California? 

MR. SABAN: As a two-meeting-old Regent, I 
obviously have a lot to learn before I can make some truly 
educated recommendations. So, I will speak from my heart and my 
stomach rather than from facts. 

I'm going to say something that may be very 
controversial, but I'm going to say it anyway because I believe 
it's the right thing. 

That is, I believe in a scaled fee. For some 
people, if they can go from $3500 tuition to $4,000 tuition, it 
would mean the difference between going and not going. To 
others, spending $25,000 or $30,000 would make no difference at 

And my view is that if we were able to implement 
within the law, obviously, some kind of a scaled fee, we would 
encourage many more people who can't afford to go to college, to 
go to college. And that's my view. 


MR. SABAN: Not educated, not based on facts, 
just from my heart. 


CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Karnette. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: If you think about your 
experience, and all the things that have happened to you in your 


life, what do you think probably prepared you best for this 
particular position? Because everybody supports you, and they 
think you've done a lot of good things. 

MR. SABAN: Well, I have been very fortunate to 
be very successful in business. And I believe in private 
enterprise. I believe in the American dream. I am living it. 

And I believe that if I were able to implement 
within the university some of the skills that allowed me to 
become very successful, working on a worldwide basis, I should 
mention, I think that the university would significantly benefit 
from my experience in that area. That's on the financial side. 

I'm very interested in various aspects of 
education, and that is something that I also, once I delve into 
the issues and the subject matters, I believe I will be able to 
contribute to. 

In addition to that, I think that on the social 
side, I have some things I'd like to see happen in terms of 
diversity, et cetera. And I think that I'll be able to 
contribute significantly at that level, too. 

So, I'm very excited about being able to work on 
such a program that is so diversified in an area that is of 
great importance to me. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: It ' s a big job. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Any witnesses in support that 
didn't testify earlier in support? 

Mr. Gnaizda. 

MR. GNAIZDA: Yes. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, 
Members of the Committee, and Mr. Saban. 


I'm Bob Gnaizida, the General Counsel of 
Greenlining Institute. I'll be quite brief. 

The seven coalition members of Greenlining, 
including the California Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, asked me 
to summarize their testimony in strong support of Mr. Saban. 

This is what some of us believe is quite likely, 
based on the conversation that we had with Mr. Saban. He is 
going to be a leader, maybe the leader, on affirmative action 
and on the effective representation of the minority community. 
And some of us hope maybe one day you'll be the Chair of the 
Board of Regents. And we hope you will lead the effort, as 
you've said you will, on affirmative action against the Ward 
Connerly Initiative, and probably equally important, 
democratizing what to many appears to be an increasingly elite 
system, at least at some of the campuses. 

So, we're very proud to have you. Thank you. 

MR. SABAN: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Any witnesses in opposition? 
Hearing none, move the nomination. Call the roll. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Karnette. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Karnette Aye. Senator Knight. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Knight Aye. Senator Romero. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Romero Aye. Senator Burton. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Burton Aye. Four to zero. 


CHAIRMAN BURTON: Congratulations. 
MR. SABAN: Thank you very much. 
[Thereupon this portion of the 
Senate Rules Committee hearing 
was terminated at approximately. 
2:35 P.M. ] 




I, EVELYN J. MIZAK, a Shorthand Reporter of the State 
of California, do hereby certify: 

That I am a disinterested person herein; that the 
foregoing transcript of the Senate Rules Committee hearing was 
reported verbatim in shorthand by me, Evelyn J. Mizak, and 
thereafter transcribed into typewriting. 

I further certify that I am not of counsel or 
attorney for any of the parties to said hearing, nor in any way 
interested in the outcome of said hearing. 

^j IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 


day of 

* -2^ 

, 2002 


Shorthand Reporter 

Additional copies of this publication may be purchased for $3.00 per copy 
(includes shipping and handling) plus current California sales tax. 

Senate Publications 

1020 N Street, Room B-53 

Sacramento, CA 95814 


Make checks payable to SENATE RULES COMMITTEE. 
Please include Stock Number 460-R when ordering. 

Zo o V 





OCT " 2 2002 



ROOM 113 


1:32 P.M. 

461 -R 












, 5 Reported by: 


ROOM 113 

WEDNESDAY, JULY 10, 2 002 
1:32 P.M. 

Evelyn J. Mizak 
Shorthand Reporter 








































GREG SCHMIDT, Executive Officer 

PAT WEBB, Committee Secretary 

NETTIE SABELHAUS, Consultant on Governor's Appointments 





Public Utilities Commission 


PacifiCorp, California Large Energy Consumers Association 


California Manufacturers and Technology Association 

MIKE FLORIO, Senior Attorney 
TURN, The Utility Reform Network 

DOUGLAS HELLER, Senior Consumer Advocate 
Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights 

Sierra Club 





Proceedings 1 

Governor ' s Appointees : 


Public Utilities Commission '. 1 

Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Direct Access and Exit Fees 1 

Bundled Customers 2 

Language in Bills re: Cost Recovery 4 

Structure to Fee Cap 5 

Edison' s Estimate Vs . PUC s Estimate 6 

Questions by SENATOR JOHNSON re: 

Bundled Customers Vs. Edison Taking Hit 

If Wrong Estimate Is Used 8 

Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Alternative Proposed : . . 9 

Way to Protect Ratepayers 10 

Conflicted Commissioner 11 

Questions by SENATOR KARNETTE re: 

Decisions on Construction of Power Plants 12 

Recourse if Denied Permit 13 

Position on AB 2958 (Wright) re: 

Suspension of NRF Rules 14 





Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Disposal of Interests in Electro Rent and 

True Pricing 14 

Negotiations on Behalf of Governor's 

Office with Sempra 15 

PUC's Jurisdiction over Utility Holding 
Companies 21 

PUC Actions in Closed Sessions 15 

Those Present at Closed Negotiations 16 

Presence of Consumer Groups 17 

9 Negotiated MOU with Sempra 18 

Lawsuit Filed by UCAN 19 



13 Statements by SENATOR JOHNSON re 

u Responsibility of Holding Companies 25 

Common Sense Interpretation 26 

Statements by SENATOR KARNETTE re: 

Risks Taken by Holding Companies 27 

Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

AB 2 95 8 (Wright) as Intrusive 28 

Reason for Rush on 20-20 Program 30 

Questions by SENATOR ROMERO re: 

Letter from UCAN in Opposition 31 

Meetings with Utility Representatives and 
Consumer Groups 32 

Meetings with UCAN 32 


Allegations of Violation of Due Process in 

UCAN' s Letter of Opposition 33 

Public Debate Should Courts Overturn 

Bankruptcy of PG&E and/or Edison Bailout 36 

Appropriateness of Closed Door Sessions 36 

Commitment to Public Discussion 3 7 

Witnesses in Support : 

Pacif iCorp 
California Large Energy Consumers Association 3 7 

Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON 3 8 


California Manufacturers and Technology 

Association 4 

Witnesses with Concerns: 

MIKE FLORIO, Senior Attorney 

The Utility Reform Network (TURN) 41 

Questions by SENATOR JOHNSON 42 

Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON 44 

Questions of MR. PEEVEY by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Spreading Out Procurement Costs 4 9 

Interest on Spreading Out Cost of 

Exit Fees 50 

Obtaining Money from Companies That Have 

Gone Out of Business or Left the State 51 

Witness in Opposition: 

DOUGLAS HELLER, Senior Consumer Advocate 

Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights 53 

Questions by SENATOR JOHNSON 55 


Questions by SENATOR KARNETTE 59 

Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

First Vote on Commission 61 

Witnesses with Concerns: 


Sierra Club 62 

Questions by SENATOR KARNETTE 66 

Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Ethanol as Renewable Fuel 68 

Purpose of Hearing 69 



Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON 71 

Closing Statements by MR. PEEVEY 76 

Termination of Proceedings 77 

Certificate of Reporter 78 

Appendix: Letter in Opposition from UCAN 79 


CHAIRMAN BURTON: Governor's appointee required 
to appear today, Public Utility Commissioner Mike Peevey. 

Michael, do you want to come up, please. Go 
ahead, Michael. 

MR. PEEVEY: Good afternoon, Senators. It's a 
pleasure for me to be here today. 

I'm not sure what I'm supposed to say, other than 
as a member of the Public Utilities Commission, I'm here to 
answer your questions and help you in any way I can. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Do you want to introduce your 
family, as long as she's staring at us. 

[Laughter. ] 

MR. PEEVEY: Is she still here? 

I have with me my wife, Carol Liu, who's a Member 
of the other House. 

SENATOR ROMERO: Is this for better or worse? 

MR. PEEVEY: Today she's for better. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: We sent you a letter that you 
answered on July 3rd, and we're basically concerned about 
several issues that are coming before the Public Utilities 
Commission . 

And the first one I'd like to deal with would be 
direct access, and then what the exit fees would be on that so 
that the residential ratepayers and small businesses are not the 
ones that get stuck with this. 

Do you know when the Commission's expected to 

vote on the exit fee proposal at all? 

MR. PEEVEY: October. As of now it's scheduled 
for October. 


Now, we had a discussion before. It was at least 
my hope and the hope of some of the other Senators that the 
direct access and the access exit fees would be like kind of 
tied together instead of the direct access happening, and then 
we'll figure out what's going to happen later. 

Has the Commission been able to determine the 
cost involved in the design of the exit fees, or how they're 
going to do that? 

MR. PEEVEY: That's the subject right at the 
moment of a continuing hearing and process. So, they have not 
come to a specific number yet at this time in July, but 
certainly will by October. 

The estimates vary widely as to the numbers. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: In one of your letters, you say 
you'd support a proposal to make bundled customers indifferent. 
What's that mean? 

MR. PEEVEY: That means that bundled customers, 
those that are not customers, or benefit or direct access 
customers, fees charged to direct access customers will be 
sufficiently high as to have no negative impact on the bundled 
customers, those that remain with Edison, PG&E, and San Diego. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: How does that relate to what 
you and Commissioner Brown, in your alternate decision on how 
direct access should be charged as far as Edison's past debt? 

Doesn't that kind of look like part of it's going to be laid on 
the smaller consumers? 

MR. PEEVEY: I'm not sure I understand exactly 
what you're referring to, but let me see if I can take a guess. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Here's what you state, 
"While we're committed to 
ensuring that bundled customers 
do not pay more than their fair 
share of costs, we also do not 
wish to eliminate the direct 
access market through 
injudicious imposition of 
charges . " 
MR. PEEVEY: Yes, well — 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I don't know if you can have it 
both ways; can you? 

MR. PEEVEY: Well, I think there's no doubt that 
some -- it depends on what kind of contracts direct access 
customers have with suppliers other than the utilities: 

If they are sufficiently cost conscious enough, 
those customers will remain with direct access, despite the fact 
that they will be charged as direct access customers so that 
there's no impact on the remaining bundled customers of the 
three utilities. 

I don't know the details of all those contracts, 
so I can't tell you with exactitude how many will stay and how 
many will return to the utilities. There will undoubtedly be 
some erosion of direct access customers when we impose exit fees 

back to the utilities. That's going to happen. I can't tell 
you what proportion. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Wouldn't it make sense to, 
like, before you did direct access, to have all the information, 
figure out what the impact would be on small businesses and 

MR. PEEVEY: Well, we know — I mean, as I 
indicated in several correspondences to you, my intention is to 
make sure that regardless, there will be no negative impact on 
on residences and small commercial customers. That's what I 
meant by indifference, and what have you. 

Now, you wrote me several letters, but one on 
July 8th, just two days ago, asking me on this subject about the 
legislation that's been amended here in the Senate dealing with 
community aggregation and exit fees in that legislation, how 
they would be described. And you asked me, there was a couple 
questions there which I'm happy to respond to in the context 
what we're talking about here. It may clarify some of 
this . 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Well, feel happy to do it. 

MR. PEEVEY: It's simply this. The question was 
asked -- 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: First of all, have you had a 
chance to like really review the language in those bills? 

MR. PEEVEY: Yes, I have. I'm comfortable with 
the language in the bills. 

Let me point out that the question was, 
"Please review the cost recovery 

language. Inform me whether you 
have any concerns about its 
application in direct access 
customers, and is there any 
reason the Commission should not 
use this language in the cdst 
recovery policy for its existing 
direct access customers?" 
I have no problem with the language drafted in 
those bills, as it applies particularly to CDWR. And as I 
understand it from your cover letter, this language was agreed 
on by the Governor's Office, CDWR, by our counsel, and the other 
Members of the Senate here, and the Senate Energy Committee. I 
have no problem with that language as it applies to CDWR. 

I have no problem with the language in the G(l) 
and (2) . 

However, I would point out to you that that 
language is not -- that is not applicable to CDWR. That 
language applies to the three utilities, and basically deals 
with who pays what if there's community aggregation in one of 
their service territories, and someone chooses to leave them, 
under what terms and conditions can that happen. 

That language, I do not believe, came from CDWR. 
It doesn't have — it seems — doesn't seem relevant to the 
CDWR concern that you put forth in the letter. 

But I just offer that as a comment. 
CHAIRMAN BURTON: Now, this is a consumer group 
making the statement, so in the structure to fee cap, which I 

guess is the one, you and Commissioner Brown's alternate thing, 
requires a no interest loan from the bundled customers to the 
direct access people, and a cost shift of roughly $150 million. 

Is that going to end up having the smaller 
customers pick up a nut for direct access, or what? 

MR. PEEVEY: No, no. That's a separate matter 
from what you've written me about. Let me explain the context 
in which I think this makes sense. 

Southern California Edison has applied to the 
Commission for what's called, they want what they call their 
historic procurement costs. This is for customers that were on 
direct access, left direct access, returned to direct access. 
And they say that they have significant costs that those 
customers should pay, that the money which, after paid, would be 
given to the bundled customers to reduce their rates. 

That's very reasonable. And what Commissioner 
Brown and I put out as an alternate, hopefully, will be voted on 
next week by the Commission here, would, over time, transfer 
$391 million from direct access customers to bundled customers 
as a benefit. 

In other words, direct access customers would pay 
$391 million, and bundled customers would receive that in rate 
reductions . 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Doesn't Edison estimate it at 
150 or so higher — 

MR. PEEVEY: Yes, they do. They do. And there's 
no substantiation by that by the Energy Division of the 
Commission or any of us to look carefully at that. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: So, what if they're right and 
you're wrong, what would happen? 

In other words, if you pick your figure and stick 
with it, and they are right, they get stuck with it? Or if they 
are right, the smaller customer gets stuck with it? 

MR. PEEVEY: Well, for Edison, the numbers — it 
doesn't make any difference for Edison. Either the bundled 
customers will pay it or the direct access customers will pay 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I really ain't worried about 


MR. PEEVEY: I know. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I'm worried about the bundled 


MR. PEEVEY: I understand. 

For the bundled customers, the question is, is it 
391 million, is it 420 million, is it 540 million? 

The best number that we could come up with — and 
this is not my number. This was done by the Energy Division in 
the PUC -- that they could substantiate, and based on audits, is 
$391 million. 

I could tell you how the 540 number is 
calculated -- • 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: The other question would be, if 
you're right, if you peg it at your number, and it turns out 
they're right, who gets stuck for the difference? 

MR. PEEVEY: The bundled customer. The bundled 
customer would get stuck if that number is right, but there's 


not evidence. It cannot be right. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: Can I ask why? 

MR. PEEVEY: It's not right because — 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: No, why would they get stuck? 


What is the impediment in the law to prevent 
Edison from eating it? 

MR. PEEVEY: Well, there wouldn't be any 
impediment necessarily to stop Edison from eating it, 

SENATOR JOHNSON: I understood it to have been 
that it would be bundled customers that would be. 

Why does it have to be done that way? 

MR. PEEVEY: Well, we do have — there was a 
settlement agreement with Edison the Commission made last fall 
that governs aspects of this, and so I think that would prohibit 
Edison from eating it, to be very frank with you. That's 
something that happened in September of last year. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: I remember it happening in 
September of last year. 

MR. PEEVEY: Before I was on the Commission. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: Some of us were eagerly 
awaiting a debate on the Senate Floor, and that never occurred. 

MR. PEEVEY: But Senator, I mean it happened at 
the Public Utilities Commission. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: I understand. I'm following you 
100 percent. 

What I'm not quite following is why Edison 

couldn't wind up eating it? 

MR. PEEVEY: Because I — to the best of my 
understanding, the settlement agreement arrived at by the Public 
Utilities Commission and Edison that ensured that they would get 
3.6 billion -- no, 3.577 billion dollars back. That was the 
settlement that was made by the PUC and Edison in the fall of 
last year. 

The question that Senator Burton is asking is, 
how are these numbers co-mingled, and who pays what within that? 

And I'm saying that for their historic 
procurement costs aspect of this, that the alternate decision 
that Commissioners Brown and myself have put out for public 
comment and all would provide that direct access customers pay 
$391 million. 

I thought you were going to ask me, how was that 
number calculated, and I was going to try to explain that. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: The proposed decision was at 
the 540 level. Your amendment or alternative's in the other 

MR. PEEVEY: That's correct. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Let's assume the 540 one is 
right, then how does it effect direct access, Edison, and the 
bundled customer? 

MR. PEEVEY: Well, it would mean that direct 
access customers would pay $540 million of the 3.6 billion, 
rather than the 391 million of the 3.6 billion. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: All right. So, basically your 
proposal, your alternate proposal, you and Commissioner Brown, 


put the bundled customers at risk for 150 million if that 
number's right? 

MR. PEEVEY: That's correct. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Well, and if it isn't -- 

MR. PEEVEY: And we'll make -- if that -- believe 
me, I went through this in detail with the Energy Division and 
all the other people, the economists at the Commission, before 
we came up with the 391 million. 

That's the only number that could be 

The 540 million is simply taking the September 
15th or September 20th percentage of Edison load covered by 
direct access customers at 15 percent, and applying that to the 
3.6 billion, will give you 540 million. That's the math. 

But that is not what has been paid -- 


MR. PEEVEY: -- because in May, it was 1 percent, 
not 15 percent in June. You have to have a weighted number. 

If you take 10 percent, which is the weighted 
number between May of 2001 and where September of 2001, not 15, 
you take 1 and 3, and you weigh them all, you come out to 10, 
you'd be at 360 million rather than 390. 

But we came up with 390 because the evidence is 
from Edison's own records -- 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: And if you were wrong, the 
bundled ratepayers pick up the stiff, the difference. 

Is there any way you can protect them from that 
in case your numbers are wrong, or not wrong, but the situation 


changes, and all of a sudden it would have been 540? 

MR. PEEVEY: Yes. We could amend it into the 
proposed order if further evidence — 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: After it happens? 

MR. PEEVEY: Yes, yes. Then the adjustment would 

be -- 


CHAIRMAN BURTON: Can't you make that part of the 

MR. PEEVEY: Yes, I think we can. 


MR. PEEVEY: I think we'd be wise to. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Was that a yes? 

MR. PEEVEY: Yes. To the extent that I'm one of 
two Commissioners on it. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I sorry, to the extent of what? 

MR. PEEVEY: To the extent, I'm one of two 
Commissioners on it. I will use my persuasive powers. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Well, you know, your influence 
on the Commission since you were appointed has not been one of 
of just somebody sitting on the Commission. 

MR. PEEVEY: It might be a bit exaggerated. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Not as I read it. You're 
forceful, and you know the stuff. 

Let me ask you a question that's got nothing to 
do with you. 

Whatever happened to the Commissioner that 
supposedly got conflicted off? Is he still on the Commission? 

MR. PEEVEY: Yes, he is. He in effect has a stay 


from the Court of the Appeals. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: So there's still a full 
Commission then? 

MR. PEEVEY: Yes, there is. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I can't remember his name. 

MR. PEEVEY: Henry Duque. His term expires the 
end of this year. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I've got some questions on a 
couple other issues, but sticking with this issue, Senator 
Johnson? Senator Karnette? 

SENATOR KARNETTE: I have some specific questions 
to ask. And perhaps you've answered them and I didn't follow 
it too well because I'm not on these Energy Commissions 

If a plant was planned in the midst or right when 
the energy crisis was at its peak, and now there's been 
decisions made that that plant would not be needed, is it the 
PUC that makes that decision? 

MR. PEEVEY: No, it's the Energy Commission. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: It's the Energy Commission. 

MR. PEEVEY: The California Energy Commission, 
yes, ma'am. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: But if they were promised that 
they would be able to do this, and then this promise has been — 
do they have any recourse? 

MR. PEEVEY: The plant. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: Well, if a city had planned to 
build its own energy plant, and you're saying that the Energy 


Commission, at the peak of the crisis, that was a decision that 
was made by a city. 

And now they're being told by the Energy 
Commission, I take it, that they can't -- we don't need the 
plant. They can't build it. 

I don't understand why they can't go ahead and do 

MR. PEEVEY: They have to get a permit from the 
— it depends on the size of the facility. If it's below 49 
megawatts or less, you don't need a permit from the Energy 
Commission. But anything above that size, they would need -- 
the Energy Commission is the state siting authority under the 
Warren-Alquist Act which created it years ago, and so, you need 
a permit from the California Energy Commission. 

Assuming that permit was granted, then the only 
thing stopping the city or community from going ahead with the 
power plant would be its own decision, or its inability to sell 
the power either to itself or to some other 'buyer at a price 
that it thought was reasonable. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: But if it made investments 
before it thought it was going to get the permit, they have no 

MR. PEEVEY: Not to my knowledge, no. They do 
not. That's at risk, if you will. 

I'd have to know more of the facts to be more 
helpful to you on this specifically, very frankly, but I'm happy 
to do that. 

But on the basis of what you said, that's the 


only way I can answer. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: There was another question, 
when AB 2958 was passed, which was Rod Wright's bill that, I 
think, said that until 2007, continue the suspension of the NRF 
rules until 2007. And that bill passed. 

How do you feel about that particular bill? Do 
you remember it? I'm not that familiar. 

MR. PEEVEY: That bill passed the Assembly. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: The vote was 66-1. 

MR. PEEVEY: Yes, but it has not passed this 
House, I believe. 

That was a question in the written correspondence 
that Senator President Pro Tern Burton asked me. My answer was 
on that Wright bill, that I'm opposed to that bill. 


CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Romero? 

SENATOR ROMERO: No, not on this issue. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Just a quick one. 

You disposed of your interest in Electro Rent 
Corporation and True Pricing? 

MR. PEEVEY: Correct. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Do you have any vested interest 
or paid positions with either company to this date? 

MR. PEEVEY: That's correct, I do not. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Knowing me as well as you know 
me, you can probably figure out that some of these questions 
have been generated by conversations or requests of others. 

Before you went on the Commission, you were a 


unpaid volunteer, or advisor, whatever, to the Governor's Office 
and negotiated the MOU with Sempra? 

MR. PEEVEY: I negotiated the MOU with Edison. I 
negotiated the MOU with PG&E. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: You did not negotiate Sempra? 

MR. PEEVEY: I did some negotiation with Sempra, 
but we never came to an MOU in — by the time that I was there. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: One of the concerns that's 
expressed is, some of the stuff that's being done by the PUC is 
being done, you know, instead of open meetings, in closed 
meetings, negotiations, and stuff like that. 

Do they do that? Is that a proper thing to do or 

MR. PEEVEY: Well, there's very little that's 
done by the PUC that's not in open meetings, very frankly. 

MR. PEEVEY: Practically everything we do is done 
in open session, and the public has a right to comment. All the 
interested parties file voluminous legal briefs, and on it goes. 

There have been — the biggest thing that 
happened that was in a closed session by the Commission was the 
negotiation of the arrangement with Southern California Edison 
when they were facing bankruptcy. That was before my time 
there, but I think that necessity required that that be done the 
way it was in a couple of days. 

But that's editorial on my part. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: When they negotiate in closed 
meetings, who's there? Just the Commission and the utility? 
Are consumer representatives there? 


MR. PEEVEY: Well, any time there's a 
negotiate -- there's only negotiation over litigation, 
essentially. Now, that is principally conducted by the lawyers 
at the Public Utilities Commission, the Legal Division of the 

It's then brought to the Commission. The outcome 
of those negotiations, if there is an outcome, is brought to the 
Commission in an executive session. 

The only people present at the executive session 
are the Commissioners and their direct staff, and the Legal 
Division, and the other division heads. There are no utility 
people or anybody like that present. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Well, I mean, do the consumer 
groups ever have any input into what kind of deals that the 
legal staff is cutting? 

MR. PEEVEY: Sometimes they do, sometimes they 
don't. I mean, there's not many deals that are, quote, "cut." 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: There have been more cut in the 
last whatever, since the energy crisis, than probably have been 
cut since Hiram Johnson because there's been so much stuff going 
on . 

MR. PEEVEY: Well, I think it's evident that the 
consumer groups didn't have any input into the negotiated 
settlement with the Edison Company, you know, because they're a 
litigant now in the federal court on the matter. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: How about with Sempra? 

MR. PEEVEY: Which arrangement with Sempra? 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Is there any negotiation going 


on with the utility or members of the Commission with Sempra at 
the present? 

MR. PEEVEY: Not with Sempra, no, no. 

With San Diego Gas and Electric there was by the 
Legal Division. That's a matter we've referred to already, I 
think, in passing. 

And yes, there's consumer input into that. And 
yes, UCAN, which is a principal consumer group in San Diego, as 
is the City of San Diego, are all members, and they're on the 
record in the filed testimony. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Yeah, they made testimony, but 
were they in when somebody's trying to cut the deal? 


CHAIRMAN BURTON: Should they have been? 

MR. PEEVEY: Urn, that's a tough question. It's a 
tough question to answer. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: That's why you get the big 
bucks . 

[Laughter. ] 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: How much is two and two? 

MR. PEEVEY: I've reflected on that. I think 
it's a good, and it's a fair question. 

I would say there are instances when, yes, they 
could be included, yes. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Could or should? 

I think the problem, Mike, is that with . 
everything that's coming down the Commission, with your 
background, coming from the industry, that there is more whether 

more pressure or more responsibility on you, almost, to bend 
over more for the public process, or more than if it was Jeff 
Brown, or Loretta, or somebody who wasn't. Because you're there 
as the Public Utility Commission, but you're there as a 
20-something year background in the Commission, and we all bring 
our stuff. 

I think' that's the concern that gets relayed to 
at least this Member by a lot of the consumer groups. 

You and I go. back 35 almost 40 years, so I just 
think that when stuff happens behind closed doors, and then it 
looks as though, you know, the consumer's getting short shrift, 
it just makes more sense to either have them part and parcel of 
these negotiations or not. 

Sempra is -- 

MR. PEEVEY: Sempra is the — 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: San Diego Gas and Electric- 

MR. PEEVEY: It's the parent company of San Diego 
and of Southern California Gas Company. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: So when I'm talking about 
Sempra, I'm talking about them. 

Is there an MOU before the Commission that was 
negotiated with them, or is the Commission in process — 

MR. PEEVEY: Oh, yes, there is, very much so. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: What was the difference between 
that one and one that the Commission rejected last year? 

MR. PEEVEY: There's a significant difference, 
yes . 



MR. PEEVEY: To elaborate, the big -- what 
happened is, last year the General Counsel of the Commission 
negotiated a settlement, MOU, if you will, with San Diego Gas 
and Electric, which was then rejected by the Commission as not 
being in the ratepayer interest enough. 

That was renegotiated a second time by the 
General Counsel on the Legal Division of the PUC . And it is 
now, in my view, a very reasonable outcome that's, shall we say, 
significantly sweetened. The pot has been significantly 

If you'll remember AB 265, the legislation that 
was passed here at the beginning of the energy crisis in 2000, 
after San Diego rates went through the ceiling, there was -- in 
effect, the Legislature and the Governor vouched for a very 
significant run-up in power purchase costs by San Diego Gas and 
Electric for electricity. 

The question then becomes, who's going to pay 
this as time goes on? 

This settlement will ensure that that money in 
that account, which is over $300 million today in that AB 265 
so-called URSA account, U-R-S-A account, Electric Revenue 
Account, will be borne, the payment, out of this settlement 
rather than any rate increase whatsoever on residential and 
small commercial interests. So, I think it's a very 
pro-consumer outcome. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: UCAN is in court opposing it; 
right? Or is the Commission opposing it? 


MR. PEEVEY: I'm not sure if they are right now. 
I haven't read their filing of two days ago. They had to put in 
their filing on the 8th, on Monday. I have not read it. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Yeah, they filed. I have no 
idea of the date, but they filed against it. 

If this one is better for the consumers than the 
last one, they probably would have filed. In fact they had a 
talk about filing two days ago, I guess. 

MR. PEEVEY: This gets very complicated, but 
essentially SDG&E sued the Commission, the PUC, in both federal 
and state courts. And if they were to succeed, and then we 
could go through many opinions as to the likelihood of success, 
and what the odds are. You know, finger in the air amongst 
lawyers as to how good something, the outcome, would be. 

But if they were to succeed in their lawsuits, 
they're claiming that the so-called intermediate term contracts 
are all shareholder assets, meaning they belong to the 
shareholders, in effect the management of the company rather 
than ratepayers. If they were to succeed, it could cost 
someplace between $350 and $450 million dollars to San Diego 
customers . 

This negotiated settlement wipes out those 
lawsuits and ensures that there'll be no increase at all in 
rates for residential customers because of that 325 million. So, 
I think it's a good deal. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: So, UCAN is acting not in the 
best interests of, or I mean it's — 

MR. PEEVEY: I think that they're — I can't 


speak to what their most recent filing is. It just happened two 
days ago. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: You might get something. 

As I recall, going back, part of the deal of 
deregulation was an agreement by the utilities or by somebody 
that the holding companies would be somewhat -- could be held 
liable for some actions, or whatever, that they did; that the 
able to pierce the veil, as they used to say, would be pretty 

Now, the Commission in January, which I think is 
before your appointment; right? 


CHAIRMAN BURTON: They reaffirmed jurisdiction 
over holding companies. 

Do you agree with that or not? 

MR. PEEVEY: Well, I don't think the Commission 
ever lost ultimate jurisdiction over holding companies in some 
aspects of it. 

These holding companies were created by the 
Public Utilities Commission, or allowed to be created by the 
Public Utilities Commission, going back into the 1980s. And 
what the intent was, and what the exact implications of all that 
are in the year 2002, I'm not really clear on, to be very frank 
about it . 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: In the decision, they said the 
first priority condition of a holding company includes the 
requirement that they infuse capital into their utility 
subsidiaries when necessary to fulfill the obligation to serve, 


so that therefore, they couldn't take the money from the 
utility, put it in their pocket, leave the utility broke so that 
the ratepayers got screwed. 

And I guess the basic thing, in January, when the 
Commission reaffirmed kind of that position, that the holding 
company couldn't take the money and run, do you agree or 
disagree with that concept? 

MR. PEEVEY: I -- I can either agree or disagree 
right now, because I'm not sure. I have to go back, and my own 
memory is pretty fuzzy about this. 

But what capital meant in 1988 — 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Mike, it * s a really simple 
thing . 

It's a simple thing whether or not those holding 
companies had an obligation, you know, to put money in to keep 
the utility's ability to serve as opposed to taking money out. 

MR. PEEVEY: Oh, there's no question that they 
have that obligation. Yes, I agree with that 100 percent. 

But it ' s being -- some would say that it goes 
beyond that . 

Yes, the holding companies have an absolute 
obligation to make sure that PG&E or Edison — 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: The issue is, can the utilities 
go after them to get them to take some of the money they ripped 
off and send it back to the utility? That's basically it. 

Or do they just, well, you got the money; this is 
it. The rates went up. We've got these long-term contracts. 
Everybody's screwed by somebody, and nothing that we can do 


about it? 

I mean, I think issue is, can they go after them 
for unjust enrichment, something? 

MR. PEEVEY: And that's -- and in the PG&E case, 
that's being litigated today by the Attorney General, very 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: And your point of view is? 

MR. PEEVEY: I don't have a strong point of view 
on this, to be frank. I'm going to have to refresh my memory on 
this whole damn thing. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I don't know anything about it, 
but I've got a point of view. 

MR. PEEVEY: Well, I understand. I understand 
that, but I'm not willing to just jump in and say -- I 
understand literally what it means. 

It means that the parent of the utility, the 
holding company — let's take PG&E or Edison, doesn't make any 
difference -- has to make sure the first priority is that that 
utility has adequate financing to build transmission, 
distribution, maintain the system, enhance the system, and all 

I agree with you 100 percent about that. 

You're asking a somewhat different question. 
You're saying, does it, beyond that point, also have an 
obligation to do what? And I'm not sure what the what is. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Well, what is obvious, they 
didn't do that which they were supposed to do, or they wouldn't 
have been coming to us looking for bailouts. 


The utilities came to us, and I don't think 
Senator Johnson was here, but I know Brulte and I were, in 
December, after it was, like, the lame duck part of President 
Clinton's thing in a meeting with Secretary Rubin, when 
everybody was there, the good, the bad, and the indifferent, 
from Bryce, to Ken Lay to the PG&E guy. 

In any event, they were coming, asking us for 
money, asking us for this and that and the other thing. 

In the meantime, these holding companies were 
grabbing money. So, they were not living up to that. 

I don't know if the question I'm asking is, does 
the utility have a right to go after them and pick their bones 
bare or not? I probably think they should, but I don't know if 
they do. 

Basically, whether or not the Commission's got — 
in other words, do you believe they've got the right to go after 
the utilities for what, anything? Nothing? What? The holding 

MR. PEEVEY: I think that the Commission 
undoubtedly has the right to ensure that the holding company 
supports the capital requirements of the utility. And the 
capital requirements of the utility, my definition has always 
been to make sure that transmission, distribution, generation, 
maintenance of the whole system is more than adequately taken 
care of. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: And if they haven't done that, 
it would seem to me implicit that they would have the right to 
go after the holding company's funds to ensure that they infuse 


them back into the utility. 

MR. PEEVEY: For those purposes I just stated, 
yes, that's true. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: For those purposes. 

Senator Johnson. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: I just want to echo the 
implicit comments of the Chairman. 

I think it is absolutely wrong that these holding 
companies, and I think that's splitting hairs, frankly, to say, 
well, no, when we meant capital, we didn't mean capital; we 
meant this and this, these specific things. I mean, it could 
have been spelled out at the time if that's what it meant. 

I think the common sense meaning is, they were 
responsible for seeing that these subsidiaries remained solvent 
in all respects. And to have billions of dollars transferred 
and spent all over the world while the taxpayers .and the 
ratepayers of California get stuck is, I think, unfair. 

MR. PEEVEY: I understand. I understand exactly 
what you're saying. 

I think one has to go back, as I said earlier, 
these holding company decisions were mostly rendered in the 
1980s, and read chapter and verse of the context in which those 
decisions were made. I just have not done that. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: I agree, and I've read some of 
that language, although it's been some months ago now. But it 
seemed to me pretty clear that it wasn't some laundry list that 
applies to this and this, you know. It was capital. 

And I think common sense would dictate a common 


sense rather than an over-lawyer analysis of what was meant 
there. I mean, common sense says that the folks responsible 
took billions of dollars during a period of time when they were 
making a bunch of money through these subsidiaries and invested 
it everywhere else in the world. Then, when the prices go up, 
you know, well, gee, I'm sorry, we've spent that money somewhere 

MR. PEEVEY: The context, to the best of my 
recollection of when the holding companies were created, was 
that the Commission acted to protect the ratepayers of the 
utilities from money being taken up to the holding company and 
being invested in insurance companies, golf courses, and all 
that kind of thing. And that was the focus at the time, to the 
best of my recollection. 

Like I said, this is the late '80s and -- 

SENATOR JOHNSON: Common sense would dictate a 
different interpretation in my mind. And if that's what was 
meant, why wasn't it spelled out at the time, th'at this is what 
we're talking about, and opposed to capital in the ordinary 
sense that we think of that? 

Then, to just bring it back to the earlier 
discussion about exit fees, and direct access, and so on, I have 
to tell you that I think in any moral sense, these holding 
companies, these parents of the utilities sure ought to be at 
risk not only before, you know, homeowners, but also major 
customers who have purchased their electricity through direct 
access . 

I mean, the people who made billions of dollars 


off of this ought to be, I think, more responsible. 

Anyway, I appreciate your listening. 

MR. PEEVEY: Well, the Commission settlement, 
just to amplify slightly, the Commission settlement with Edison, 
which is — I mean, PG&E's in bankruptcy. San Diego never got 
to that point and maintained its credit rating. Edison was on 
the verge on this. 

The Commission settlement last fall with Edison 
did take $300 million from the holding company, number one. 

Number two, it did say that there could be no 
dividend payments from the holding company to shareholders until 
all this past-due money was paid off. So, I mean, there were 
economic consequences of that, that came out of the hide of the 
holding company. 

I'm not saying that was adequate or sufficient. 
I'm just saying that it did happen. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: But there ' re going to be 
economic consequences for taxpayers and ratepayers of all kinds 
and descriptions. 

MR. PEEVEY: Yes, there is, for some time to 
come. That's absolutely true. I agree with that. And it's our 
just to try to ensure that those are de minimus. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Karnette. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: Well, I've listened to all 
this, and I've heard it before, but it seems like you mentioned 
to me a while ago that the city has to take a risk. That's a 
risk. They just lose their money if they made a plan and they 

Well, it seems to me like the holding companies, 
this is a risk, and their risk was, they might have to pay this 
back, and they didn't do it. 

Now, maybe I'm oversimplifying things. But they, 
too, took a risk. When you make an investment, you take a risk. 

But they don't want to pay the consequences, and 
I think they should. If this poor city has to pay the 
consequences, then I think those holding companies. 

Maybe some of mine, maybe I have investments. I 
don't know. I mean, I don't know where my retirement, I don't 
know where they're all invested, but I'm willing to do that. 

I just think it's a matter of moral integrity 
that they should — okay, so they can find the money someplace. 
They can borrow it from some other company. That's the way you 
do things, and they could have done it. They didn't want to do 
it. They just didn't want to. And I think they should, and I 
think the ratepayers shouldn't have to pay the consequences. 

MR. PEEVEY: Okay. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Romero. 

SENATOR ROMERO: No questions on this. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Just a couple more things. 

You briefly mentioned you did look at, although 
it's in the process, I think, of being amended, Chairman 
Wright's 2958. 

MR. PEEVEY: The NERF bill. 


One, you stated, which I believe, it's intrusive. 
In other words, it takes the utility out of the ability to do 


some regulation, or try to recapture some money, or deal with 
rates, assuming you find out that the utility, which in this 
instance we're talking phones, either made too much money, 
charged too much money, or cooked the books. 

MR. PEEVEY: It's prescriptive legislation. You 
know, I'm a little chary about saying this, but by the 
Legislature, the legislation would sunset, but for a period of 
time, it significantly restricts the Commission's ability to 
carry out its duties, in my view, regarding telecom, and I don't 
think that's wise. 

I wrote you that today I would oppose that 
legislation. When it first came before me, I'd only been on the 
Commission two weeks. I didn't know anything about it, to be 
very frank. 

But I think it's an unwise piece of legislation, 
and I would advise the Governor's Office accordingly, if it gets 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Well, Senator Bowan ' s committee 
has been -- I don't know whether we're working with Chairman 
Wright or with SPC, or whatever. But we're trying to work on 
some amendments to the bill that deal with what may well be a 
legitimate point of view that they have, and see whether or not 
something could be worked. 

But I think just the way it is, it sort of locks 
something in that I don't know if it's good, bad, or 
indifferent . 

I've talked to the president of the company about 
a month ago, and then as late as yesterday, and gave them my 


feelings. So, hopefully something will work. 

The bill in its present form had very little 
support in the policy committee. 

MR. PEEVEY: You should know, I yesterday 
indicated my feelings to Mr. Daily about that. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I appreciate that. 

MR. PEEVEY: But just yesterday he was in town. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: What was the rush on that 20-20 
program this year as it came out of the Governor's Office? I 
mean, he seemed to be in a big hurry to do it. Although, I 
think you were in the meeting when Senator Bowan, and we met in 
my conference room, and really, it was starting before it got 
hot, instead of like having some more public input. 

Did the pressure for getting it done quick come 
out of the Governor's Office? 

MR. PEEVEY: Well, more important than the 
Governor's Office was just the time of year. I mean, here we 
are in early July, and frankly, I'm glad we have this program in 
place because today's setting all kinds of heat records all over 
the state, and I'm glad we have some -- an element of a 
conservation program that's an incentivized program for 
residential users here that's in place. 

And' it runs through the end of October this year. 
Last year it ran June through September. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Johnson, Senator 
Karnette, anything further? Senator Romero. 

SENATOR ROMERO: I have some general questions 
about due process. 



SENATOR ROMERO: Before I was elected to the 
Senate, I represented the 49th Assembly District, and it's 
somewhat unusual for me to get a communication regarding 
opposition to a particular appointee. In this case, I did 
receive a very strongly worded resolution that was adopted by 
the 49th Democratic Assembly District in opposition to your 
appointment . 

I don't know if you're familiar with that and 
have read the contents of that. 

MR. PEEVEY: No, I have not. 

SENATOR ROMERO: I'll share it with you. 

Two days ago, the Committee did receive a letter 
from the Utility Consumers Action Network. I don't know if 
you've seen this letter as well. 

MR. PEEVEY: I have not. 

SENATOR ROMERO: There are four major issues that 
are raised with respect to their concern. I think they're 
serious issues, and of course, I'm sure that we can make sure 
that you get a copy of this. 

But the ones that concern me the most are 
questions of due process. Can you describe for the Committee 
how decisions' are made by the PUC? 

You are under the auspices of the Brown Act; is 
that correct? 

MR. PEEVEY: The Bagley-Keene Act, yes. 

SENATOR ROMERO: Bagley-Keene. 



SENATOR ROMERO: There is an argument in this 
particular letter that was received by the Committee with 
respect to the San Diego Gas and Electric with respect to the 
appealing of the Commission decision relating to the $348 
million in profits reaped by the utility during the energy 
crisis . 

Apparently, according to this letter, and I would 
just like confirmation, if you can indicate, and these are 
allegations, if you could confirm for me whether or not these 
are accurate or inaccurate, because they do concern me to see 
them worded. 

Do you meet from time to time with 
representatives from utility companies? 


SENATOR ROMERO: Do you meet with consumer 

MR. PEEVEY: Yes, my door is open to anyone. 

SENATOR ROMERO: Your door is opdn to anyone. 

MR. PEEVEY: To anyone. 

SENATOR ROMERO: So, if UCAN wanted to set up an 
appointment with you to discuss a particular policy that might 
come up at an upcoming board meeting, you would be willing to 
meet with them? 

MR. PEEVEY: Of course. 

SENATOR ROMERO: And that has occurred? 

MR. PEEVEY: They have never come to see me. 

SENATOR ROMERO: Have they ever submitted 
telephone requests or letters? 


MR. PEEVEY: No, nothing. 

SENATOR ROMERO: So, there's never been a request 
by at least this particular action network. 

What about by other consumer groups? 

MR. PEEVEY: They have been in to see me 
repeatedly, whether it's TURN, NRDC, Environmental Defense, you 
name them. They've been there. 

In fact, I just voted last week for an intervenor 
funding request of TURN. 

So, this is a -- this is shocking, this letter. 
I've just glanced at it. 

SENATOR ROMERO: I thought you hadn't read it. 

MR. PEEVEY: I just read the — I just glanced at 
it. I'm a quick reader. 

SENATOR ROMERO: It's shocking to me as well. 
That's why I'm glad that you do have a copy of the letter. 

MR. PEEVEY: It was just put here on the table. 

SENATOR ROMERO: If you would kindly turn to Page 
Two. This is the part that particularly concerns me with 
respect to due process. Perhaps you could just take a moment to 
read three short paragraphs. 

There are some issues that are raised that I, 
quite frankly, in all fairness to both you and to the network, 
if you could address the allegations that are raised in this 
particular letter. 

MR. PEEVEY: These are — there's not much I can 
say to this. I mean, this is frankly a smear, to be blunt about 


And I just quickly read this due process thing 

This group last never reached out to talk to me. 
They have never said a word to me. Now, it's Mr. Shames who is 
the head of this organization has -- well, they've never made an 
effort to ever communicate anything with me whatsoever, unlike 
every other consumer group in the state that I know of. 

So, the kind of thing they say there, disregard 
for due process, and selling out San Diego customers, I mean, 
these are, you know, flame laden phraseology and words that I 
resent . 

SENATOR ROMERO: If you might just address 
really, more so, the question is about the decision making 
process arrived at. 

I understand, too. I will have meetings with 
consumer groups. I will have meetings with utility 
representatives as well. 

I think the concern raised here and that I would 
like to have just some specific answers to is, whether or not 
you do feel that there is, perhaps, the perception, if that 
alone, the perception that perhaps there are closed door 
meetings with utility executives, representatives, which later 
translate into public policy at Commission meetings without 
notice, without input, from consumer groups, whether or not they 
have requested to meet with you. 

Is there at all a concern that there may be a 
perception that that may be the case? 

MR. PEEVEY: Well, apparently in this 


organization's mind there is that perception. I mean, that's 
what they say. 

What can I say other than that? 

No, I mean, they have the right to come talk. 
They can have lunch. They could meet in the office, anything 
they choose. 

If they choose not to meet with me, and then make 
these kind of assertions, 

"We have been informed that 
Mr. Peevey has steadfastly 
refused to respond to press 
calls on this matter." 
Absolutely untrue. I would talk to anybody from the press. 

I mean, I don't know where this comes from. This 
is second and third-hand things that are scurrilous, to be very 

SENATOR ROMERO: And the bottom line is, you have 
an open door policy. 

MR. PEEVEY: I absolutely. 

SENATOR ROMERO: And you meet with all groups. 

MR. PEEVEY: Absolutely. And I would say to this 
Committee, and if there's anybody representing UCAN behind me, 
that it's up to you to come and see me. My door is open to you. 

I don't know what more I could possibly say to 
that, you know. They make no effort whatsoever to say -- have 
any communication with me, and then send you a letter, no copy 
to me to the best of my knowledge, and the letter appears here 
on this table five minutes ago, and that's it. I mean, that is 


not a way to conduct the affairs of state. 

SENATOR ROMERO: The other issue as well, too, 
with respect to due process that I would ask about is that there 
was quite a bit of consumer outcry regarding the deals that were 
made with respect to bankruptcy with respect to Edison, and of 
course PG&E. I for one did not vote for the Edison bailout. 

There was concern and a bit of a public outcry, I 
believe, about the nature over this. 

Of course, you're not on the Commission. This is 
not your responsibility. 

However, if these deals happen to be overturned 
by the courts, what would be your belief with respect to having 
discussions about the next step, what to do, in public? 

MR. PEEVEY: I would have no problem with that at 
all. We'll have to await events to see whether that happens or 
not . 

One of these consumer groups, TURN, is one of 
those that has appealed this in federal court today, as a matter 
of fact. They may succeed; they may not. 

If they do, we will be presented with a very, 
very significant challenge as a Commission, because of the $3.6 
billion so-called under collections to the Edison Company, 1.9 
billion they've already recouped. So, you're in a situation. 
It's never — it's a little bit like putting Humpty Dumpty back 
together, in some respects. 

SENATOR ROMERO: This would be considered to be 
litigation. Would this be an issue in which you would think 
that this would be an appropriate use of a closed door session? 


MR. PEEVEY: Well, there would be that, but it 
would also certainly have -- there would have to be some very 
open discussion. This would be a very significant alteration of 
things . 

SENATOR ROMERO: And a commitment that there 
would be public discussion, with the ability of the public to 

MR. PEEVEY: Yes, absolutely. 


CHAIRMAN BURTON: Witnesses in support, please. 

Mr. Dereg himself. 

MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman and Members -- 

MR. PEEVEY: I might add, this was not at my 
request . 

[Laughter. ] 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Wait till you see the next one. 

MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, Members, I'm D.J. 
Smith, acting personally, but also on behalf of PacifiCorp and 
the California Large Energy Consumers Association. 

We're in strong support of this nomination. We 
believe that this particular member of the Commission brings a 
balance and a sense of the business, both publicly and 
privately, that has been lacking. And frankly, we really 
believe will bring back to prominence the role of -- the 
historical role of this Commission. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Which you considered what? 

MR. SMITH: Respect for the regulatory pack, 
utilities that had an obligation to serve are allowed to recoup 


their costs in an adequate rate of return, for starters, so that 
we didn't have insolvent utilities in the state. The state had 
to come back and take over the process. 

A balance between all consumers and the interests 
of the utilities, not just residential consumers, small 
consumers, but also large consumers that contribute to the 
economy of the State of California. 

I think this is one nominee that has a sense not 
only the history, but where we need to go from here. We've got 
a lot of broken eggs here to put back together. This obviously 
did not work out the way anybody had intended, and we're going 
to go through a very difficult transition period. This 
transition period is controversial, complex, and very difficult, 
and will require a lot of tough decisions. 

My clients face hundreds of millions of dollars 
in costs that'll be allocated by this Commission — . 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: As a result of what? 

MR. SMITH: As a result of — 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Them wanting to have direct 





MR. SMITH: Wanting to bring down electrical 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: And them wanting to have direct 

MR. SMITH: Yes, some competition in the 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Was that forced on them, or was 
that a request by them? I can't remember, the business 



MR. SMITH: Actually, it was the initial foray 
into deregulation was the product of a Commission proceeding to 
look at this whole issue. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: But I mean, when a business 
community gets — 

MR. ''SMITH: Which was supported. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: — gets direct access, is that 
something the Commission makes them do, or that something that 
they have free will to do? 

MR. SMITH: Right now they have a choice. They 
had a choice for a limited period of time. 

But their rates were increased between 70 and 140 
percent over a very short period of time. A lot them jumped 
during this window last year into direct access contracts, where 
they took the risk for the energy portion of their bills. 

And that — right now, a significant portion of 
the major agricultural, commercial, and industrial employees of 
this state -- employers of the state are now on direct access 
contracts of one sort or another. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: How much do you think they 
ought to bear in exit fees and costs that they kind of escaped 
by jumping, when the homeowner down the street, or the 
farmworker working for that big farm -- 

MR. SMITH: My client, CLECA, has come forth with 
testimony at the Commission where we don't wish to escape. We 
are arguing, Mr. Chairman, about each element. You know, what 
should be in, what should not be in. 


And frankly, we side with a lot of the other 
small consumer groups on some of those arguments. 

But we have not endeavored to escape any of these 
major fees. 

We have suggested to the Commission that the 
so-called mortgage that's due here from direct access customers 
be arranged so that we don't have such an economic cost shock 
that many of our folks can't do business in the state any 
longer, particularly -- 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Pick up your farms and move to 

MR. SMITH: No, they're going to shut down plants 
and facilities, or move production outside of the state. 

We believe that what we're trying to work out 
with the Commission is a long-term payment plan, if you will, so 
that the shock, the rate shock, is not so severe that it really 
impacts people's ability to do business here. 


MS. ROTHROCK: Thank you, Committee. My name is 
Dorothy Rothrock. I'm with the California Manufacturers and 
Technology Association. 

I also was not solicited to appear here today by 
the nominee, but I'm in strong support. 

The Association believes that the PUC will be 
well served with Mr. Peevey's experience and background in the 
industry, and that's what we need to lead us forward into the 
next few years as we find our way out of the crisis. 

Any questions? 


CHAIRMAN BURTON: Any other witnesses in support? 

Other witnesses, Mike Florio. 

MR. FLORIO: Thank you Mr. Chairman, Members of 
the Committee. My name is Mike Florio. I'm senior attorney for 
TURN, The Utility Reform Network. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: And a valued member of the ISO. 

MR. FLORIO: For better or worse, yes. I imagine 
I'll be sitting up here one of these days myself. 

TURN, as matter of policy, generally does not 
take positions pro or con on nominees to the Public Utilities 
Commission. We work on a day-to-day basis with Commissioners of 
both parties for 25-plus years now. And, you know, we agree 
sometimes; we disagree sometimes. And we try to get along. 

So, I'm not here to say you should confirm, you 
shouldn't confirm. That's your business, not ours. 

I was asked to share some of the our reflections 
about Commissioner Peevey, and that's what I'm here for today. 

I think, as you've seen already, Commissioner 
Peevey is an extraordinarily capable person. He has a long 
history in the industry. He's quite a bit more knowledgeable 
than many of the people who have served on the Commission in the 
past. And that's all to the good. 

I think we, as advocates for residential and 
small business customers, have some concerns. I wouldn't say 
that Commissioner Peevey is hostile to our interests. I think 
he does care about small customers, but you have to look at what 
goes on at the PUC . 

There are basically four sets of interests that 


contend over the years in various sorts of proceedings. There 
are the utilities; there are actual and potential competitors of 
the utilities; there are large customers like the two that you 
just heard from; and there are small customers, such as TURN and 
UCAN and others represent. 

And I think our concern is not that small 
customers don't show up on the priority list. I think the 
concern is, those other interests tend to take precedence for 
Commissioner Peevey. And, you know, that's -- that's a matter 
of personal philosophy that's not for us to judge, but it 
certainly is a concern for us. 

And I think this direct access issue that you've 
talked about is a good example of it. We are just today filing 
comments on the alternate that was sponsored by Commissioner 
Peevey and Commissioner Brown that you asked some questions 
about earlier. We are extremely troubled by that decision. We 
believe that it seriously — 


Senator Johnson. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: Could I get you to address the 
same question that I asked of Mr. Peevey, do you believe there's 
any impediment, if there is in fact a difference, to having 
Edison, for example, eat that instead of either direct access 
customers or the public customers? 

MR. FLORIO: We are in Federal Appellate Court 
right now trying to make sure that Edison bears some of that 
responsibility. We think that the holding company did have an 
obligation to step in and turn back some of the money that they 


made from the good years and help the utility out in lean times, 
which they did not do. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: So, it's your position that 
it's not necessarily one or the other, either the direct access 
folks take a major hit, or bundled ratepayers take a major hit. 
That there is a third alternative? 

MR. FLORIO: Yes. Unfortunately in the 
circumstances we're in now, where the Commission has already cut 
a deal in Federal Court before Commissioner Peevey was 

In the case that's in front of the Commission 
right now, there are only the two options, is it bundled 
customers or is it direct access. If we're successful in our 
challenge to the settlement, that other option may be opened up 
again. But for the moment, we've got a fixed pie that we're 
slicing up. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: It doesn't seem like it ' s a 
very good choice -- 

MR. FLORIO: Oh, it's a horrible choice. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: -- between two sets of people 
who are not responsible for the situation we're in. 

MR. FLORIO: Absolutely. And the ratepayers are 
the real victims of this situation that's happened. 

And we were extremely distressed when the 
Commission settled with Edison on terms that were far more 
generous than the terms that barely passed out of this house 
last summer, the bill that passed the Senate. I believe it was 
Senator Polanco's bill, would have given Edison two-and-a-half 


billion dollars, and that would all have been paid by the large 
customers . 

SENATOR JOHNSON: In fairness, Mr. Peevey wasn't 

MR. FLORIO: Correct. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: I have very similar problems 
with what was done, and at a point in time when clearly the 
Legislature, in my opinion, was not going to take the action. 
Suddenly, the PUC steps in at the Nth hour. 

But I'm still hung up on this question of, does 
that settlement absolutely preclude Edison bearing a greater 
share of the responsibility? 

MR. FLORIO: As I read it, it does, unless we're 
successful in overturning it. 


CHAIRMAN BURTON: There's a difference in dollars 
of, I think, 154-something to 155-something; right? 


CHAIRMAN BURTON: If it's four something, which 
Commissioner Peevey, based on the evidence believes it will be, 
something's going to happen. If the 450 becomes, for whatever 
reason, wrong, and it goes up to that five number, then the 
bundled customer Will get stuck with it. 

MR. FLORIO: That's correct. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: What if, at the get-go, and I 
forgot to ask Commissioner Peevey this, what happens at the 
get-go if they pick the 590 number? 

MR. FLORIO: Well, we think that a number in the 


500 million range is the correct one. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: In other words, they get stuck 
equally, direct access and the bundled, or Edison gets stuck, or 
who gets stuck? 

MR. FLORIO: We think that the 540 million 
number, or something in that range, would spread it equally over 
everyone . 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: But it'd be spread equally over 
all the ratepayers, direct and nondirect? 

MR. FLORIO: Right, right. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: But if you go in at the lower 
number and you're wrong, it all goes to the smaller ratepayers? 

MR. FLORIO: If the 390 million number is 
adopted, that extra 150 million would be picked up by the 
bundled customers. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON:' Okay. I think, as I recall, in 
answer to a question, the Commissioner said that if they pick -- 
and I don't want you to go back and try to read through it -- 
but if they say whatever the 390 is, but in the event that it's 
more, then it would be spread equally. 

Wasn't that the answer? 


MR. FLORIO: I'm not sure how that would come 
about procedurally. The Commission could reopen the record to 
take more evidence. I think, you know, there has been an 
acknowledgement by the parties that there are unknown numbers 
that are not on the record of that proceeding. We think that 
the 390 -- 


CHAIRMAN BURTON: Could the Commission not say 
the number's 390, and in the event it goes above that, that that 
number will be spread equally among the ratepayers? 


CHAIRMAN BURTON: It seems like something 
logical. Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean it can be 
done . 

MR. FLORIO: Well, I think that's what the Edison 
proposal that, oddly enough, TURN supports, would do. It would 
set a fee of about two-and-a-half cents a kilowatt hour, and 
however much direct access there was, that's the amount of money 
it would bring in. It might be 390; it might be 540. 

But as I understand the alternate, it would say 
the number's 390 and not a nickle more. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: As long as we're just kind of 
discussing something, they're coming in with, there's a bill and 
there's an amendment; right? I mean, somebody can't amend the 
amendment? In other words, somebody can't change the alternate? 
It's either one or the other? 

MR. FLORIO: We're — we are filing comments 
today at the PUC on that. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Forget the comments. What's the 

Or I should ask the Commissioner. 

MR. PEEVEY: I indicated to you earlier that I'm 
open to doing that, and finding a mechanism to do that. 

So, if the number turned out to be 540, rather 
than 390, you could do it. 


CHAIRMAN BURTON: In the procedure you can amend 



CHAIRMAN BURTON: I just wondered. 

MR. PEEVEY: And I would just point out — and 
Mike, you should know that -- that I would be happy to support 
540 if the record shows that. But the best that Planning and 
the Energy Division came up with was 391. That's it. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: You understand that. We're all 
in agreement that if somehow God came down and made a mistake, 
that they're going on to adopt it, clearly. 

MR. FLORIO: We are hopeful that our comments 
will convince Commissioner Peevey and Commissioner Brown that it 
should be the higher number. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I think the important thing is 
that there is language. I don't know if you can do it, and 
that's why I'm trying to find out, and it's kind of simple. 

If the order says, and if the" number is higher -- 

MR. FLORIO: Yeah. The trouble is, I think the 
Commission decides what the number is. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Well, if they decide what the 
number, in other words, the Commission cannot say the number is 
four, but in the event it's five, we go rob a bank? 

MR. PEEVEY: You could make a -- I mean, the 
answer to your question is a simple one. Yes, we can do that, 
and yes, it can be made subject to further revision or 
refinement by the Energy Division. 

And I said that we will put in language like 


that . 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: So, I understand the process. 

Now, the one thing I'm trying to understand is 
that you can do that prior to adoption. In other words, if you 
adopt it, then you got to go back in. Isn't it easier to try to 
do it right from the get-go? 

MR. PEEVEY: One would think so, and when I leave 
here, I'll get on the phone. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Okay, fine. You've committed 
to that. 

MR. FLORIO: And we've talked about this in the 
past, before the alternate came out. We'll continue to talk 
about it and try to work it out. 

MR. PEEVEY: I'm happy to sit down and talk with 
you on this. 

MR. FLORIO: Sure, and we have on many 
things . 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Why don't you do it without 
taking up a lot more time. 

[Laughter . ] 

MR. FLORIO: Okay. 

There's one other thing that I want to mention on 
this direct access issue. There's this issue of spreading out 
what the direct access customers have to pay over a longer 
period cf time. Mr. Smith mentioned that. The alternate talks 
about doing that. 

We do not care. We would support spreading out 
the liability if bundled customers don't have to carry the 


freight in the meantime. That's where this concept of a forced 
loan from the small customers comes in. 

If you're going to give them longer, the big 
customers a longer time to pay, who is fronting that money in 
the meantime, and what interest rate are they getting on it? 
And as we read the alternate, we're fronting the money, and 
we're not getting any interest. That's troubling to us. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Could you comment on that? And 
address this, too, Mike, and maybe it doesn't matter, but let's 
say you've got Campbell Soup, or whoever it is, and they're 
spreading it out over 20 years. In 10 years Campbell dies, and 
his kids don't want to be in the soup business. What happens to 
that? Do they have mortgage -- what's that stuff when you buy 
a house and you die, the worst insurance you could get -- 
mortgage life insurance. 

What would happen in that event? 

And also, if the unbundled customers are 
basically fronting the money to allow the big users to spread 
out the payment, which is not necessarily an unfair thing, but 
that should probably also be on the showing that they really 
have to spread it out. Who fronts it, and how do they get the 
money back, and is it fair for somebody's grandmother to pick up 
the stiff? 

MR. PEEVEY: On that point, I mean, let's just 
take this historic procurement cost of Edison's. It's 391 
million. That's not the actual number. It's higher than that, 
because there's interest in there, too. 

So, it's 391, but it's spread out over a couple 


of years. So, it'll be 391, but you'll be paying a fraction. 
You'll be paying interest on it, so that in truth, it's not a 
free ride, but in fact, the direct access customers will pay 391 
plus the 5.9 percent interest charge on that money for the 
period of time until the 391 is paid off. So, it'll add up to 
more like 420 or 430 than the 391. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: You know, you were so smart, 
you cannot answer my questions. 

MR. PEEVEY: I answered one of your questions. I 
didn't answer the second one. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I didn't even know I asked that 
one . 

[Laughter. ] 

MR. PEEVEY: I don't know about Mr. Campbell. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: No, the point is, the direct 
access, D.J.'s people, on exit fees. They don't want to have to 
come up with, you know, a million dollars today. They want to 
spread out the payment. Makes sense. 

But if they're spreading it out, is there a 
shortfall that's got to be met by somebody, and that somebody 
would then have to be the bundled customer, then what are they 
getting in return for that? Or in fact, they're subsidizing the 
fact that his guys are getting along? 

MR. PEEVEY: The way I see this working, very 
frankly, I tried to use by way of analogy this historic 
procurement cost to Edison, but the same thing would apply. 

To the extent that the direct access customers' 
money is the spread out over time, there will be an interest 


component, and they will pay that interest component. So, 
instead it going, say, eight years, it'll go ten years, because 
there'll be interest. So, they don't get off the hook. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: But somebody at some point — 
MR. PEEVEY: And the bundled customers will not 

pay it 

money — 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: They don't have to front the 

MR. PEEVEY: No, they don't front it. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: -- with a shortfall of -- 

No, it's in the interest charge. It'll be in the 
interest charge. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: You ought to get those orders, 
Mike . 

MR. FLORIO: I didn't see interest in there, but 
if it's supposed to be there, that's great. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Just another thing, and I know 
even know if it would be an issue or not, but say you have 
whatever it is, an asphalt business, or who knows what, asphalt, 
or maybe even a technology business. 

If you have a company that's spreading their 
money over, say, a 10 or 15-year period, whatever it is, and for 
whatever reason that company, nobody's using asphalt any more. 
They're using aggregate, and they're out of business. 

How do you pick up the money they owe you when 
they're no longer there buying electricity? 

MR. PEEVEY: Well, as a practical matter, I think 
the remaining nonbundled customers, direct access, customers 


will pick up the rate. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: In other words, that -- 

MR. PEEVEY: It's a situation, someone leaves the 


CHAIRMAN BURTON: You know, it's just kind of an 
idle curiosity question. 

MR. PEEVEY: But it's like someone leaves the 
state, they go to Nevada. Put their warehouse in Nevada. They 
were a direct access customer. 

The CDWR charge and everything else are going to 
remain there, so someone else — the balance, the group's going 
to pick it up. 


Thank you, Mike. 

MR. FLORIO: I think that's — I just wanted to 
make a suggestion that may come back before some of you, is 
there's potentially, when you get into the DWR, a large chunk of 
money here that's going to be on this loan for 15 or 20 years. 

And one of the options that we'd like to put on 
the table is, DWR is going to go out and float a big bond, maybe 
we should add a little more on to that bond to front the money 
for the bundled customers, and then we're out of it, and we're 
happy to support, you know, DWR borrowing the money and 
collecting it over time, with interest, from the direct access 
customers . 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Whatever happened to those bond? 

MR. PEEVEY: They're already over $11 billion, 
the biggest issuance ever in the history of the country. 


MR. FLORIO: Yeah, but that's another option. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: It's money well invested as 
opposed to spent. 

MR. FLORIO: That's basically what I had to offer 
for the Committee's consideration. 

Thank you. 


Doug Heller. 

MR. HELLER: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, 
Members of the Committee. I'm Douglas Heller. I'm the Senior 
Consumer Advocate with the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer 
Rights, a nonprofit and nonpartisan organization. 

In addition to our consumer protection work, our 
organization works to protect taxpayer dollars, particularly 
with an emphasis on conflicts of interest in government. 

We appreciate the opportunity as well, 
Mr. Chairman, to provide testimony on what we see as a very 
important issue of whether or not Mr. Michael Peevey is 
qualified to take on a Commissioner's responsibility, and that, 
of course, defending utility ratepayers. 

In our mind, the fundamental role of the 
Commissioner is to protect consumers. And unlike others have 
suggested, the Commission is not constitutionally set to balance 
the interests of corporations against the interests of 
consumers . 

The duty of the Commission is much clearer: to 
regulate the various utilities in order to ensure reliable and 
reasonably priced services to ratepayers. 


We believe that in judging whether or not 
somebody is qualified to sit on the Commission, one should look 
not only at what they say they will do, but also what they have 
done . 

And based upon our analysis of Mr. Peevey's 
professional career, his public statements about regulation in 
the past, and as well as his term thus far as an unconfirmed 
appointee to the Commission, we do not believe that Mr. Peevey 
meets those qualifications that the public interest sets. 

As one might look at other departments in the 
state, one certainly would not want the head of State Farm to 
run the Department of Insurance, a timber industry executive to 
oversee forestry management, or the head of Kaiser -- 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: God forbid that. 

MR. HELLER: Or the head, for example, of Kaiser 
to run the Department of Managed Care. 

And just as, I think, this Committee and the 
State Legislature would be outraged if the President were to 
name an executive from Reliant Energy or Enron to fill a seat on 
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, we believe it is 
equally unacceptable to place Mr. Peevey on the California 
Public Utilities Commission. 

For most of the past 18 years, Mr. Peevey's 
professional career has been dedicated to corporations that are 
either overseen by the PUC or have in various ways worked around 
and tried to get around its authority. Between 1984 and 1993, 
Mr. Peevey worked for the Public Utilities Commission regulated 
Southern California Edison Company. He became the President of 


that company in 1990, and after retiring in 1993 -- 

SENATOR JOHNSON: Question, Mr. Chairman. 

Could you refresh my memory? Did you take a 
position on S. David Freeman's confirmation? 

MR. HELLER: We did not. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: Can I ask why not? Why this 
analysis that you're going through here with respect to 
Mr. Peevey doesn't apply equally to Mr. Freeman? 

MR. HELLER: I don't think that that's — I don't 
think that I'm suggesting that. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: I'm puzzled as to why you're 
here opposing this nominee and didn't oppose, didn't take a 
position, on Mr. Freeman. That's what you just said; right? 

MR. HELLER: That's right. There is — that is 
correct. We did not take a position on Mr. Freeman. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I want to answer that one, one, 
and then make a comment. 

One, because what Freeman did do was always 
public, public power, which he was, but basically what 
Mr. Peevey 's -- we're talking about, I mean, Hugo Black was in 
the Ku Klux Klan, and he was appointed to the Supreme Court, and 
was the most liberal member, he and Bill Douglas, in the history 
of the Court. 

So, I think what a person, and for whatever 
reasons, everybody was in the Klan in Alabama when he was kid, I 
guess . 

But I think it would be more important to talk 
about Mr. Peevey 's record or your concerns as he's been a 


Commissioner, as opposed to his life experience that he brought 
to it. In other words, actions that he's done, or statements on 
the Commission, not the fact that he was with the utility. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: I agree with that. I'm just 
pointing out that the witness, in my opinion, was using a double 

MR. HELLER: And sir, I simply — 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: That's okay. 

MR. HELLER: And I appreciate that. 

I will put on the record because I think it is 
essential that on the public record, this is an acknowledgement 
that the person that is being considered does have a 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: That's Day One clear. 

MR. HELLER: Then I will simply — I will confine 
my statements with regards to his professional career to say 
that simply in short, Mr. Peevey's professional career presents 
one big conflict of interest, and leave it at that. 

And I would like to just add a few points of 
comments and commentaries that Mr. Peevey has made prior to 
sitting on the Commission, because they are particularly 
relevant to his role. And I think it's essential that one 
recognize that in recent years, Mr. Peevey's work was to 
encourage deregulation and to oppose regulation. 

In fact, in Mr. Peevey said very clearly after — 
first of all, he said in advance of deregulation that this was 
going to save anywhere from 25 to 40 percent for ratepayers. 
Suggested that there was a huge electricity regulation tax, was 


the word that he used, which was his euphemism for regulation, 
saying that it was a $55 billion a year tax on electricity 
consumers, regulation was. And said that the electricity 
business will simply run better than before, everyone will 
benefit . 

And then in January of 2001, when California was 
suffering under its first series of blackouts, when the 
Legislature was scrambling to find a solution to ever increasing 
rates, prices that had gone beyond what anybody had ever even 
conceived of, Mr. Peevey, when asked a question by the Los 
Angeles Times , responded, quote, "I'm still an advocate of 
deregulation. " 

It is our belief there you can't have an advocate 
of deregulation sitting as your regulator in charge. It is too 

the role of the regulator cannot be taken up by somebody who 
wants to undo that responsibility. 

We feel that the history is relevant here. 

Now, to the issue of Mr. Peevey 's career as a 
Commissioner over the past few months. Much of our concerns 
have been addressed. I would note that one of the first actions 
taken by Mr. Peevey was to block a fine against MCI that had to 
do with consumer protection violations. That has concerned a 
number of consumer organizations who watched that issue outside 
of energy. 

But on the energy issue, which was our concern, 
and which the Chairman other Members of this Committee have 
discussed, the first major energy-related action taken by 
Mr. Peevey was to vote for the direct access deal. That deal, 


we believe, should not have been voted, certainly not at that 
time, when there was no exit fee developed. We do not believe 
that the energy companies that stand to benefit by maintaining 
their contracts as a result of that should have been given -- 
given that deal. We felt that it was the first evidence of a 
conflicted Commissioner. 

Mr. Peevey, as he has acknowledged here, does not 
hold any conflicting interests, and we certainly believe that 
and expect that. But you have a history, a professional 
history, which has created a conflict that we don't -- not only 
doesn't appear to or -- as you said, there isn't the bending 
over backwards, Mr. Chairman, that we would need to see to show 
that this distance has been created. 

When our — when the Edison deal was struck, as 
Senator Johnson has noted was before Mr. Peevey' s time, there 
was a law -- there has since been a lawsuit filed by The Utility 
Reform Network. However, in the time since Mr. Peevey has been 
on the Commission, the Commission has been meeting in secret 
negotiations, in closed door sessions, to develop a similar 
bailout plan for the Pacific Gas and Electric Company. 

And our organization has challenged the continued 
closed door sessions in the California State Supreme Court. And 
we're very concerned that, as Mr. Peevey suggested earlier, 
well, not too much happens in closed door sessions. Only the 
most important things. Only the things that are most expensive 
for the rate paying public. 

And we fundamentally believe that we have to have 
a Commissioner who will not accept ratepayer money discussions 


to happen in closed sessions, that will put aside the history — 
or excuse me -- that will stand up in any event, and in every 
event, for the public, for the ratepayer. 

And it is our belief that California, in the wake 
of the deregulation disaster, needs somebody that does not come 
from that very industry which pillaged our state as it 
manufactured a crisis and stole billions of dollars from us as 
ratepayers and as taxpayers and as businesses. 

For that reason, we do not believe that Mr. 
Peevey is a suitable nomination to the Public Utilities 
Commission, and for that reason we urge you to reject his 

I do appreciate your time. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Karnette. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: You know, every group, every 
professional group, likes to have people who understand their 
profession evaluate them. 

I'm confused as to who do you want on the • 
Commission if you don't want somebody with expertise? 

I'm not saying, necessarily, that this gentleman 
is the one you want, but it seems to me he understands the 

' I don't want to be on it, that's for sure. I 
mean, I don't think I would want some lawyers I don't want on 
there. There are a lot of people I wouldn't want, because they 
don't understand it. 

Who do you want? 

MR. HELLER: I appreciate that, Senator Karnette. 


I do believe that there are a number of people in the State of 
California that are very well equipped, and without embarrassing 
him, I know there's been -- there have been a number of people 
that have suggested that Mr. Florio should be sitting on the 
Commission. He's very expert, but he is not the only one. 
There are a number of people, we believe, that both are equipped 
to sit on the Commission, and at the same time, don't have a 
history of making millions of dollars in that industry which he 
or she would then be asked to regulate, and having a 
professional career in that industry. 

And we believe that that sets up a concern. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: What kind of background? I 
don't know what kind of background Mr. Florio has. 

MR. HELLER: And I don't think he's real eager. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: But what kind of background 
should a person have that sits on the PUC if not in the 

And you said regulating, we have judges who are 
lawyers who then regulate lawyers. We have all kinds of people 
in the barbering industry who regulate other barbers. 

So, I don't know if that flies exactly. 

MR. HELLER: Well, it is our organization's 
belief that the Public Utilities Commission is at its heart a 
consumer protection agency. And people that have worked on the 
issues of energy regulation, telecommunications regulations, 
without having been in the industry, without having made their 
— there are certainly people that could have experience in the 
industry, who have worked near the industry, or even in it at 


times . 

But we are talking about Mr. Peevey as someone 
who has been an executive in the industry for many, many years. 
And I think that that rises to a level where it's beyond just 
having knowledge, and it leads -- and it hits that level of 
conflict. And that is where our concern lies. 


CHAIRMAN BURTON: If you could, Commissioner 
Peevey, the MCI issue, that was your first vote on the 

MR. PEEVEY: It was the first day of a Commission 
conference, yes. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: First day. What was your 
theory in not putting the 250 fine on them that probably would 
have at least paid for the time of the PUC? 

MR. PEEVEY: I think there a 250 fine in place. 
It was a much larger amount -- 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Two hundred and fifty grand 

MR. PEEVEY: It was a much larger amount, is the 
best as I recall. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: As I understand it, and I could 
be wrong, they had to return $9 million to the customers, so 
that was unjust enrichment. 

And then the penalty proposed, which seemed kind 
of de minimus to me, was like 250. It would have either sent a 
message that you can get away cheap, or sending a message that 
at least if you do something, you're going to have to lose more 


than your unjust enrichment. 

This was an issue raised by a couple consumer 
groups . 

MR. PEEVEY: Yes. That was my first meeting, to 
be very frank. And I voted with Commissioners Brown and Duque 
on the matter rather than with Commissioners Wood and Lynch. 
That's true. 

I don't know why I was any more the critical 
third vote than either one of those two were, but I was 
persuaded by their arguments at the public session rather than 
by what -- 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: What were the arguments? Can 

you remember? 


MR. PEEVEY: I can't recall right now, to be 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: It wasn't that persuasive. 

MR. PEEVEY: It didn't linger in my memory. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Any questions of Mr. Heller? 

All right, next. 

Thank you, Doug. 

John White. 

MR. WHITE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I 
appreciate the Committee's invitation to testify on behalf of 
the Sierra Club. 

We don't have a position on Mr. Peevey's 
nomination, but we appreciate the chance to raise some questions 
that we think might be useful for any Commissioner that's before 
you . 


Unfortunately, the environment hasn't been a 
significant part of how the Commission has viewed its 
responsibilities historically, and there are some issues that we 
think are worth considering, and hope that in the time that 
Commissioner Peevey serves on the Commission, there'll be an 
opportunity for some leadership to be undertaken on these 
issues . 

First of all, the hydro system is going to remain 
now with the regulated entities, and that's going on to mean an 
opportunity for the hydro system to be repaired from an 
environmental standpoint. That's something where we think the 
Commission has a significant opportunity to create some 
beneficial outcomes for both the ratepayers and for the 
environment. And historically, that's not something they've 
done . 

They also have before them coming some projects 
that are going to have some significant impact on the 
environment with respect to transmission projects. The Valley 
Rainbow Project in Riverside-San Diego County has a very 
significant amount of local concern, and a very important, I 
think, need for alternatives to be examined. We know that we 
need more power into the San Diego region, but this is a project 
that has a long history in the route. And of course, since the 
route was originally developed, about 150,000 people have moved 
into the Temecula Valley, and some Indian issues. 

So, those are two issues where we think the PUC 
needs to be a good steward and needs to pay attention to more 
than just the preferences of the utilities. 


Secondly, renewable energy is something that has 
been a casualty of the crisis. California used to be the 
national leader in renewable energy. Unfortunately, one of the 
consequences of the train wreck on deregulation is that 
renewable development has all but ceased in this state. 

The DWR contracts and the utilities' own 
short-term procurement plans have nothing to offer for 
renewables . 

The exit fee issue complicates that issue as 
well . 

We're hopeful that in the near term that the 
Commission can do something about that, maybe with some help 
from the Legislature. But clearly, we think that renewables 
need to be more than an afterthought, and the utilities really 
need to be held accountable. 

As we creep back into the world where utilities 
are dominating our lives again after the deregulation 
experiment, they need to be held accountable for their 
performance with respect to both renewables and efficiency. We 
think this is an area where we're hopeful about the 
possibilities that are present. We don't have any actions yet 
to give us confidence, but we're hopeful and think that that's 
an important area. In particular because it's really up to the 
Commission. Even if we pass a bill like Senator Sher has to 
have a renewable portfolio standard, and point to the Governor's 
promise, the Commission is the one that has to execute, and has 
to get the utilities to do the things they need to do with 
respect to efficiency and renewables. 


And third, we, too, a share the concerns that 
have been raised about process and believe that one of the most 
important parts of the ongoing role of the Commission is going 
to be building public confidence. You know, we're in situation 
where the public has lost its faith and lost its trust in our 
ability to protect them and the state from the actions of the 
market and the actions of the utilities. 

And in the specific matter that was referenced 
earlier with respect to San Diego Gas and Electric, we do think 
there's reason, given the entire range of behavior by Sempra, 
San Diego Gas and Electric, the regulated and the unregulated 
side, for some very careful deliberations on that question. 

And we actually are hopeful that Senator Dunn's 
Committee could help us out in this regard because, in fact, the 
Commission is not able to really investigate the unregulated 
side of Sempra, which in fact sold us 43 cents a kilowatt hour 
of power on the spot market. And Sempra has one of the most 
egregious of the long-term contracts. That's also outside the 
Commission's jurisdiction. 

So, we actually think one of the things, in 
addition to having the Commission's own process be as open and 
as accessible as possible, we hope that Senator Dunn's committee 
could actually help the Commission out by helping unravel some 
of the behavior that Sempra and San Diego Gas and Electric has 
done over the whole course, because it is, I think, a tangled 
bit of business and deserving of some further scrutiny. 

But we look forward to working with Commissioner 
Peevey, and appreciate the Committee's asking questions and 


giving us an opportunity to raise some issues that don't always 
get considered at the front burner. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

MR. PEEVEY: May I make just a brief comment. 


MR. PEEVEY: John, you should be assured that I 
have a very strong interest in renewables, and a very strong 
interest in enhanced energy efficiency, which has consequences 
that are very positive for renewables and for the better 
husbanding and shepherding of the resources in this state. I'm 
committed to doing that, and you can assured that you, as I 
think NRDC and others will tell you, that they're very 
comfortable there. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Karnette. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: Either one of you may know the 
answer to this, but if a power company, let's take Edison for 
example, and power lines run across a certain area, and there is 
negotiations, pending negotiations, between Edison and Caltrans, 
or some other group, construction groups around freeways. 

Does the PUC get involved in that at all? If 
there are negotiations for using property that they have that 
might have been used for environmental — 

MR. WHITE: I believe that the Commission has 
jurisdiction over all utility-owned assets, and one — 

MR. PEEVEY: The answer is yes, it can. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: And if they were in any kind 
of negotiations with Caltrans and Edison negotiating, for 
example, you would have to approve whatever their negotiations 



MR. PEEVEY: Well, I'm not sure. If it's as 
simple as a left-turn signal or something like that under some 
right-of-way, I doubt it. 

But we do have the inherent power, as John White 
has indicated, to get into almost anything that- affects the 
utility's power lines or any other aspect of their business. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: But if it related to 
environmental -- 

MR. PEEVEY: Someone has to bring it to us. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: And if it related to 
environmental concerns, who would be involved in that? 

MR. WHITE: I think the Commission, on a 
transmission line, for example, would be the lead agency under 
CEQA and would have to approve the transmission line or a grade 
separation, for example. And they would also have to approve 
the disposition or sale of any utility asset as being in the 
public interest, which is one of the issues -- 

MR. PEEVEY: John, that's the way it was. But 
after AB 1890, we ceded a lot of that responsibility to the 
FERC. Not all, but a lot. 

MR. WHITE: In the case of PG&E's hydro, we are 
hopeful that they still have jurisdiction over those dams. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: So, if we have arguments with 
FERC, where do we go, to our Congress people? Does that help? 

MR. PEEVEY: Not much. There's not a lot of 
evidence so far. That's a tough one. 

But the example is this Path 15, where it's now 


FERC has moved in and basically usurped what had been 
historically a state role. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I don't know you would be 
familiar with this or not, but down in Palm Springs, 
surprisingly -- in fact, you should know this because I think 
the deal they have is with Edison. I don't know if you were 
with Edison when they were doing the deal -- that they had a 
wind contract. Then, when the wind wasn't blowing or something, 
they were going to make the windmills go with ethanol. And then 
Southern Edison was making a claim that ethanol was not a 
renewable source of energy, like wind was. 

Do you know that issue at all? 

MR. PEEVEY: No, I don't. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Ethanol, that's like something 
that grows in the ground. 

MR. PEEVEY: Ethanol comes essentially from 
corn. It is, I guess you could say, a natural fuel in that 
sense . 

I know what the issue is. I don't know the 
specifics in what you're referring to. 

Basically, you have these wind farms or solar 
farms. You want to use — the owners want to use another fuel 
to ensure — as a backup for a certain percentage of the time. 
And historically, it's been — natural gas has been used. 

But ethanol, frankly, is a substitute for natural 
gas; although, it may be more costly, and you have to transport 
it here, and all those kind of things. 

So, that's what the applicants have been seeking, 


is to use ethanol rather than natural gas. 

I don't know how it plays out in the specific 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Edison's point was that it 
wasn't a renewable resource, where FERC said it was. 

In other words, you don't know anything about the 


resource . 

MR. PEEVEY: No, but I think it is a renewable 


You want to take a break? Break. 
[Thereupon a brief recess 
was taken. ] 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: The final witnesses, I hope, 
is Dan Jacobson of CALPERG. 

As I told Commissioner Peevey, the purpose of 
this meeting was not as to the issue of confirmation, because 
his term will actually be up before his year's up, but because 
despite his protestations, he is probably one of the more 
influential members of the Commission in either the first or the 
third vote. 

But basically to try to get the Commissioner on a 
public record on these issues. And then, if he feels like it, 
if the Governor feels like it, or somebody else feels like it, 
next year and he's renominated for a full term at that time, 
we'll deal with the confirmation issue. 

Go ahead, Mr. Jacobson. 

MR. JACOBSON: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 


I'll keep my comments short. I'm just getting over a cold. If 
my comments aren't clear, I'm happy to repeat them. 

CALPERG is in neither support or opposition. We 
don't take a position on the PUC Chairman. There are just 
simply a set of categories where we think that the PUC Chair 
should consider issues -- 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Just for the record, at least 
at the present, he's not the Chair. 

MR. JACOBSON: I'm sorry. People on the PUC 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Maybe you know something that 
the rest of us don't, or he's had an event with the Governor. 

MR. JACOBSON: First with energy, I think that 
the questions have been brought up dealing renewable energy, and 
we're very confident that the Commissioner is a strong supporter 
of renewable energy. 

There are a couple of questions that I think were 
important. The first is with the recent opinion by the 
Government Accounting Board in terms of FERC and their inability 
to oversee energy companies. Is there a role in the future that 
the PUC should play in helping to regulate the energy markets to 
avoid future energy crises like the one that we've seen? And 
what sort of steps should the PUC be taking in order to do 

The ether is that the Governor has clearly stated 
his support for the renewable portfolio standard. And I think 
it would be important for the Commission to not only play a role 
in that, but what are the other opportunities that we have in 


order to increase renewable power here in the state. The 
reports that we've done say that the trouble can come if we do 
not diversify our energy portfolio, and if we just stay stuck on 
increasing the amount of energy that we're getting from fossil 
fuels . 

The second area of concern that we have deals 
with telecommunications. As the Internet becomes a greater 
piece of telecommunications, it becomes clear that the PUC has 
to take a larger role in ensuring that customers are protected 
and that they're well served. And the first issue that comes to 
mind is, as Internet companies are oftentimes gobbled up by 
other Internet companies, there need to be opportunities to 
protect the customer so that they aren't taken advantage of, 
either with the privacy agreements that they had with the first 
Internet company, or with price agreements that they had with 
the first Internet company. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Does the PUC have authority to 
do that? 

MR. JACOBSON: Well, they should over the 
telecommunications, since — 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: No, do they? 

Do you have authority to do that stuff? 

MR. PEEVEY: We have authority in the telecom 
area, but when you get into the Internet, no. Essentially no. 
And when you get into cell phones, and all that, there's a line, 
and most of it is not within our purview. Although, we can and 
have, for example, just recently voted to investigate Singular 
Wireless because we've had over 3,000 customer complaints. 


But we don't have the ability by law. It's 
preempted by federal law in many cases. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Do you have a way of 
bootstrapping? If you can look at the phone company, whatever 
the phone company is -- I remember when there was just "the" 
phone company — but look at a phone company. Then, if they 
kind of are spinning off or grabbing, have you got any way to 
look at some of that? 

MR. PEEVEY: Yes, yes, we can. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: You can look at them as a 
bootstrap to try and make them behave at other end? 


MR. JACOBSON: We think it would be similar to 
the PacBell settlement that was just reached of $27 million, 
where they were unjustly charging people for DSL service, and 
that the PUC should take a more active role in being able to 
look at issues like that. 

The third is really a general area, that we don-.' t 
think that the PUC has any control over right now, but it may be 
an issue or an area that they should start to look into, which 
is, as the larger — as a large number of corporations across 
the country, and some here in California, are having problems 
with their accounting standards. Is there an opportunity in the 
future for the PUC to look and to ensure that the companies that 
they are regulating are going to meet all of the general 
accounting principles that need to be met so that we don't have 
the kind of meltdowns that we've had either with Enron or with 
World Com? 


That's a future issue. We don't think the PUC 
has the authority to do that right now, but I think it's one 
that as we continue to have these problems, it may be one that 
they want to look at. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Would that take a statute to 
give them the authority? 

MR. JACOBSON: That would take, I think, some 
action from the State Legislature, but it is something that the 
State Legislature should look into in terms of, if PUC is going 
to regulate both energy companies and the telecommunication 
companies and others, there may be an opportunity for us to ask 
the PUC to step in and to ensure that those companies are 
meeting the generally accepted accounting principles. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Well, unfortunately, there 
aren't any generally accepted accounting practices now, except 
being able to steal. 

Assemblyman Correa had a bill in the Assembly 
that died. I have a bill — 


CHAIRMAN BURTON: — that passed over, and we're 
in a process, maybe, of seeing what it looks like the Congress 
might actually start doing something now, or to try to move 
something there. 

And I was going to talk to Chairman Correa, 
because if he's got a bill on our side and wants to pick 
something up, I have no great desire to author a bill or not. 
But we're trying to do something there. 

This is far afield of Mr. Peevey's stuff, but the 


big issue is, do you include what they can do, or do you include 
what they can't do? In other words, that's the deal. And I can 
see problems with both. 

One of the problems with saying what they can't 
do was the problem with the first assault weapon ban, where they 
banned AK-47s, so they came up with an AK-51, and it wasn't 
banned so they could do it. So, if you tell them, "You can't do 
this," they just fudge a bit. 

So, that's kind of where we are, not so much with 
the industry, although they seem to have more sway in the 
Assembly than they did in the Senate. 

But also, I can see the logic on both sides. If 
you list that, every time you say, "You can do those eight 
things," then all of a sudden something could come up where 
everybody in the world will say, "Yeah, they ought to do that," 
and then they can't do it until you amend the bill, or you give 
it to the Accounting Board. Which you don't know whether 
they're an Accounting Board or a Board for Accountants. 

MR. JACOBSON: That's why the two bills that 
you're talking about, both the Correa bill and also your bill, I 
think are important. 

It is going to be key in anything that passes 
that you have to define what they can do. From architects to 
realtors, the professional code is filled with "Here's what you 
can do . " 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: What you can do. 

MR. JACOBSON: Yes, what you can. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Is there a process for like the 


Board of Realtors, or somebody else, can add stuff to it? 

MR. JACOBSON: The Correa bill had a provision in 
there that gave the board the authority to say, if there is some 
new thing that comes up, it should just be approved by the 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: It did do that? 


CHAIRMAN BURTON: That was one of the arguments 
they were having with me. 

He accepted that amendment? 

MR. JACOBSON: Yes. I mean, there were a number 
of -- I mean, a few amendments that were taken -- 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I would like us to not take the 
time now, but I'd really like to talk to you -- 

MR. JACOBSON: Yes, sir. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: — about that thing, because I 
don't want to deal with the bill. If it's a list of things they 
can do, and the board can expand on it, or it's a list of things 
they can't do and they can expand, there ought to be something. 

To me, it's a flat conflict of interest if I'm 
making $20 for auditing your stuff, and $5 for doing the other 
stuff, I know where my bread's buttered. 

MR. JACOBSON: Unfortunately, now you make about 
$73 for consulting, and about $13 for accounting. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Either way, where there's 
money, there's a problem. 

MR. JACOBSON: Yes, thanks. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Do you want to close, Mike? 


MR. PEEVEY: No. I really don't have anything 
else to say, other than I have to say, I'm slightly amused by 
the fact that -- I mean, I've had a checkered work career. 
There's no doubt about it. I was a union official. I was a 
staff at the University of California. I was in a utility 
executive. I was the CEO of a company that was in the direct 
access business. 

Some people accuse me of being too close to the 
utilities; other accuse me of being too close to this group or 
that group. 

I had my personal fights with Edison, and PG&E, 
and San Diego that were -- when I was the head of new energy, 
that were pretty dramatic, and explicit, and lasting. 

And I'm on the PUC to try to serve the public 
interest. And I happen to agree that the first charge of the 
PUC is to protect ratepayers, and that's what I'm committed to 
doing . 

I think I bring a background of experience that 
will allow me to weigh the choices properly and, hopefully, make 
good decisions in the public interest there. 

That's what I'm committed to trying to do. 


As I said to Mike earlier, the purpose of this 
was not for confirmation because his term's up before he has to 
be confirmed. But we didn't have a chance to get the most 
powerful member of the Commission on record. 

So, thank you very much. 

MR. PEEVEY: I kind of wish that wishes came 


true, but anyway, that's another matter. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Be careful what you wish for 

Thank you. 

[Thereupon this portion of the 

Senate Rules Committee hearing 

was terminated at approximately. 

4:47 P.M. ] 

— 00O00 — 


I, EVELYN J. MIZAK, a Shorthand Reporter of the State 
of California, do hereby certify: 

That I am a disinterested person herein; that the 
foregoing transcript of the Senate Rules Committee hearing was 
reported verbatim in shorthand by me, Evelyn J. Mizak, and 
thereafter transcribed into typewriting. 

I further certify that I am not of counsel or 
attorney for any of the parties to said hearing, nor in any way 
interested in the outcome of said hearing. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 
SO dav of \_W Z / 


, 2002. 


Shorthand Reporter 


3100 Fifth Ave. Suite B, San Diego, CA 92103 
Tel: (619) 696-6966 Fax: (619) 696-7477 
lUCAN web: e-mail: 

July 8, 2002 

Senator John Burton 
State Capitol 
Sacramento, CA 95814 

RE: July 10 th hearings on Public Utilities Commissioner Michael Peevev 

Dear Senator Burton; 

UCAN submits these written observations about the tenure of Michael Peevey on the 
California Public Utilities Commission since he assumed office on March 9, 2002. 
UCAN has long been critical of the activities of Mr. Peevey, both while an executive 
with Southern California Edison as well as while Mr. Peevey was informally advising 
the Governor. So the discussion below does not pretend to be an objective analysis 
of Mr. Peevey's brief tenure. But we do raise a number of issues and questions that 
warrant investigation prior to Mr. Peevey's confirmation hearing. 

In the four short months that Mr. Peevey has been serving as a Public Utilities 
Commissioner, he has wreaked more havoc than any single Commissioner 
appointed in over 20 years. And he has been instrumental in creating a regulatory 
body that sneers at the long-standing precepts of openness and fairness. In short, 
his brief tenure has been a tragedy that portends disaster in the not-so-distant future. 

In this letter, we will raise but four of the alarming activities of Mr. Peevey as 
Commissioner and Energy Advisor. They are: 

1 . His disregard for due process in his advocacy of selling out SDG&E customers 

2. His role behind the disasterous DWR long-term contracts 

3. His anti-consumer vote in an MCI case about which he knew little 

4. His attitude towards holding company abuses and the manipulations of the 
natural gas transportation market 

We are also concerned about his philosophies on telecommunications competition 
(specifically abuses by incumbent LECs) , the role of the utility in generation and the 
need for rate relief for ALL customers --all of which are important issues to be tackled 
by the Commission this year. And we raise some concerns about Mr. Peevey's role 
in the operations of the Commission. 





Page Two 


Commissioner Peevey has been the leading force behind an effort by SDG&E 
to settle an appeal of the Commission decision relating to $348 million in profits 
reaped by utility during the Energy Crisis. Two months prior to Mr. Peevey's 
appointment, the Commission flatly rejected a previous "settlement" between SDG&E 
and the Department of Water Resources. 

Based upon sources within the utility, UCAN is informed that shortly after his 
appointment, Mr. Peevey met with SDG&E/Sempra representatives over dinner. At 
this informal meeting, plans were laid by which SDG&E would offer an additional $24 
million in exchange for Mr. Peevey's efforts to advance a settlement within the 
Commission. Since that meeting, UCAN is informed that Mr. Peevey and his staff 
had additional meetings with SDG&E and he has actively pushed for settlement of 
this matter in closed-door, unreported sessions. Naturally, there is no tangible proof 
of Mr. Peevey's role due to the closed nature of the PUC deliberations. 

UCAN maintains that Mr. Peevey's meetings with SDG&E/Sempra 
representatives were likely illegal and unarguably unethical. We have been informed 
that Mr. Peevey has steadfastly refused to respond to press calls on the matter. And 
he has not publicly divulged his involvement in this matter. UCAN believes that Mr. 
Peevey should be forced to fully disclose his involvement in this flouting of due 
process and, if UCAN's sources are correct, Mr. Peevey should be censured and/or 
removed from office. 


The Public Utilities Commission is charged with reviewing the reasonableness 
of future energy contracts signed by utilities as well as reviewing the propriety of 
modified existing DWR energy contracts. A Commissioner will have some degree 
of influence over the renegotiated terms of existing energy contracts as well as the 
shape of future contracts. 

It is for this reason that Mr. Peevey must be compelled to fully disclose his 
involvement in the current batch of long-term energy contracts to which DWR is 
committed. UCAN is informed that Mr. Peevey was very active in the negotiation of 
these contracts in his capacity as a informal advisor to the Governor. UCAN has no 
problems with the fact that Mr. Peevey - an experienced utility executive and energy 
broker — provided such guidance to the State. It was entirely appropriate and would 
have even been admirable had the contracts inured to the advantage of the State. 


Page Three 

However, UCAN is very concerned that Mr. Peevey is currently and will be in 
a position at the Commission to influence the Commission's involvement in future 
negotiations and acceptance of these contracts. Moreover, Mr. Peevey is currently 
in a position to influence Commission policy on the nature of regulatory review of 
energy contracts entered into by utilities, in lieu of DWR. It is important that Mr. 
Peevey's views on the role of regulatory oversight of such contracts be solicited by 
the Senate. 

Additionally, Mr. Peevey may have played a very active role in the most 
expensive and controversial DWR contract - the one with Sempra Energy. This 
contract may come before the Commission in some fashion and it is important that 
Mr. Peevey be compelled to fully disclose his role in negotiating this controversial 
contract as well as his opinion about its terms. 


Since taking his seat, Mr. Peevey has an opportunity to opine on one notable 
matter relating to consumer protection. In a complaint brought by UCAN against 
MCI (C. 98-06-016), it was found that the company had engaged in four distinct 
examples of overbilling and misbilling as well as refusal to cancel accounts. As a 
result of UCAN's action, MCI was compelled to return over $9 million to customers. 
UCAN proposed that MCI be assessed a modest $250,000 penalty so as to send a 
message to the company (and other companies) that such behavior should not be • 
tolerated. Moreover, MCI had imposed significant costs upon Commission staff and 
should have been required to reimburse the state's General Fund for these costs. 

Inexplicably, Mr. Peevey chose to vote on this item in his first day as a seated 
Commissioner. He could not have had the time to review the case and he did not 
even have appointed advisors. Yet, he voted against Commissioners Wood and 
Lynch and was the swing vote in a decision that imposed no fine at all on MCI. (D. 
02-03-054). In so doing, he served notice to consumers (and perhaps other 
Commissioners) that he would be reluctant, if not outright opposed, to serve as a 
consumer cop. Moreover, being the deciding vote on a matter in which he had no 
background or meaningful briefing, he displayed a willingness to use his decision- 
making power in an arbitrary manner. 

No comparable cases have come before the Commission since that decision 
but the message he sent was loud and clear. And from a consumer protection point 
of view, the message was embarrassing for the State. 




Page Four 


Mr. Peevey is known to have been a Gubernatorial appointment designed to 
appease business interests. While regrettable, UCAN does not believe that this fact 
alone makes a person unfit to serve as Commissioner. There is a legitimate role for 
Commissioners who are well-versed in business concerns. But Mr. Peevey's 
pronouncements, public and private, on matters before the Commission raise 
concerns about his commitment to the important role of regulation in monopoly- 
dominated industries. 

For example, despite the array of holding company abuses that are unfolding 
on the state and national scene, Mr. Peevey appears to be disinterested in 
enforcing existing protections against holding company manipulations. This is 
problematic for California. For example, a recent independent audit found SBC 
siphoning hundreds of millions of dollars out of its affiliate Pacific Bell. This 
particular holding company abuse will be coming before the Commission for a vote in 
the coming months. While it may be inappropriate for Mr. Peevey to opine on this 
specific case, it is entirely appropriate for him to discuss his general feeling about the 
need for holding company protections and limitations. 

On the natural gas transportation front, the Commission has been very active 
in pursuing pricing abuses by gas transport companies (and their holding 
companies). Mr. Peevey appears to have little interest in pursuing such wrong- 
doing, going so far as to privately frustrate the Commission's efforts in this regard. 
The Commissioner should be held accountable for his position on this matter, 
including whether California should continue to seek FERC sanctions against gas 
pipeline owners who were found to have manipulated prices. 


It is little secret that the Public Utilities Commission has suffered from almost 
20 years of neglect and managerial turmoil. By the late 90s, it had become a largely 
dysfunctional agency. In the past two years, it has received some much needed 
revitalization and funding infusions. We are concerned that Mr. Peevey's 
management style - which has been described by some CPUC personnel as 
management by intimidation - could undermine the improvements that this 
Commission has been making in recent years. 

It is important that the Senate get a better sense of what Mr. Peevey sees as 
the role of a Commissioner in making the agency work more effectively. And it is 
important that he acknowledge the substantial demands of his time to do a proper job 


Page Five 

as Commissioner. Serving as a PUC Commissioner in current times is more than a 
full-time commitment. The public deserves a sense of whether Mr. Peevey is 
interested and able to make such a commitment during his tenure. 

UCAN appreciates that by speaking out about Commissioner Peevey, we will 
likely be targeted for retribution. We expect that was part of the motivation behind 
his underinformed decision on the MCI billing abuse decision. We know for a fact 
that it is that retribution factor that is discouraging others from speaking out about Mr. 
Peevey's activities at the Commission. In speaking to Commission staff, it is clear 
that he is a feared and distrusted new force at the Commission. Moreover, he is an 
individual who appears to place a low priority upon upon fairness, accessibility and 
the interests of the underrepresented. To our knowledge, he has done literally no 
outreach to any interests other than businesses and utilities. While we would not 
have expected any invitations extended to UCAN, we believe that Mr. Peevey could 
reasonably be expected to meet with other public interest consumer or environmental 
groups that often intervene at the Commission. Based upon our cursory reviews of 
the CPUC visitor log, it would appear that Mr. Peevey has made himself extremely 
accessible to regulated utilities; in the four months that he has been there, he has 
had far more meetings with regulated companies than any other Commissioner. We 
found no evidence of meetings with any public interest representatives. 

It is our cheerless obligation to inform the Senate that Mr. Peevey's brief 
tenure portends for some remarkably bad policymaking and even greater operational 
dysfunction at this very important regulatory body. During our 20-years of 
intervention and activity at the PUC, we have interacted with Commissioners who 
have differing opinions and diametrically opposed ideological orientation from that of 
UCAN. But with only a few exceptions, we've not encountered a Commissioner with 
as much potential to be a disruptive and negative force against the public interest. 
We ask that the Senate use this opportunity to answer the many questions raised by 
Mr. Peevey's activities as well as to put Mr. Peevey on notice that his methods and 
his policies are not consistent with the public interest of the State's utility customers. 

Respectfully offered, 

Michael Shames 

Michael Shames 
Executive Director 

461 -R 
Additional copies of this publication may be purchased for $3.50 per copy 
(includes shipping and handling) plus current California sales tax. 

Senate Publications 

1020 N Street, Room B-53 

Sacramento, CA 95814 


Make checks payable to SENATE RULES COMMITTEE. 
Please include Stock Number 461 -R when ordering. 






OCT - 2 2002 



ROOM 113 


4:05 P.M. 





ROOM 113 


4:05 P.M. 

Reported by: 

Evelyn J. Mizak 
Shorthand Reporter 










GREG SCHMIDT, Executive Officer 

PAT WEBB, Committee Secretary 

NETTIE SABELHAUS, Consultant on Governor's Appointments 








California Regional Water Quality Control Board 

North Coast Region 


State Water Resources Control Board 


California Regional Water Quality Control Board 

North Coast Region 


California Regional Water Quality Control Board 

North Coast Region 


California Regional Water Quality Control Board 

North Coast Region 




Proceedings 1 

Announcement of Withdrawal from Consideration by- 

Governor's Appointees: 


California Regional Quality Control Board 

North Coast Region 1 

Introduction and Support by 


Opening Statement by MS . WASSON 2 

Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Riunito 4 

Steps to Improve Rivers and Streams 

Declared Impaired Due to Sediments 5 

Possible Sanctions if Pacific Lumber 

Ignores Clean-up and Abatement Order 7 

Response by ART BAGGETT, Chair 

State Water Resources Control Board 7 

Department of Forestry and Timber 

Harvest Plans 8 

Backup by State Water Board 9 

Questions by SENATOR KARNETTE re: 

State Board's Willingness to Backup 

Regional Board 10 

Lawsuits 10 

Legislature's Ability to Help Expedite 

Process 10 

Hearings 11 


Discussion re: Forestry Board Appointments in 

January, 2003 11 

Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Ability to Fix Roads to Reduce Sediment 12 

Enforcement Ability 12 

Landowners' Responsibility 13 

Motion to Confirm 14 

Committee Action 14 


California Regional Quality Control Board 

North Coast Region 14 

Introduction and Support by 


Opening Statement by MR. CORBETT 14 

Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Imposition of Fines 15 

Quorum Problems 16 

Questions by SENATOR JOHNSON re: 

Current Quorum Situation 17 

Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Number of Vacancies on Board 17 

Motion to Confirm 18 

Committee Action 18 


California Regional Quality Control Board 

North Coast Region 19 

Background and Experience 19 


Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Granting of Waivers to Timber Industry 20 

Burden of Proof on State Board When 

Granting Waivers 22 

Questions by SENATOR KARNETTE re: 

Need for Legislation to Correct Dispute 
Resolution Process 23 

Motion to Confirm 24 

Committee Action 24 


California Regional Quality Control Board 

North Coast Region 2 5 

Opening Statement 25 

Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Only Vote Opposing Extension of 

Time for Public Comment 2 5 

Reason It Took So Long to Issue 
Clean-up and Abatement Order to 
Pacific Lumber 26 

Willingness to Seek Penalties for 

Noncompliance with Order 2 7 

Laxity of Board' s Executive Director 2 7 

Statements by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Intention to Support Nomination 2 7 

Board Is Law Enforcement 2 8 

Problem with Board of Forestry 28 

Motion to Confirm 28 

Committee Action 2 9 


Termination of Proceedings 29 

Certificate of Reporter 30 

Addendum: Prepared Written Statement Submitted by 



CHAIRMAN BURTON: First of all, I would like to 
announce that Mr. Selvage has withdrawn his name from 
consideration today, so he's off calendar. 

Senator Chesbro, you want to introduce some 

SENATOR CHESBRO: I'll ask Ms. Wasson to come on 
forward while I'm introducing her. 

I'm really pleased to see so much attention being 
paid to rural areas. I'm not used to the Legislature showing so 
much concern, and I do appreciate it. 

We have several members of the North Coast Water 
Quality Control Board being considered by the Rules Committee 
for confirmation today. I want to say that I appreciate the 
willingness of anyone to do the fairly thankless task of serving 
on a regional water quality control board, and they're all to be 
commended for that. 

I'm very pleased to introduce several good 
friends of mine. First of all, Ms. Bev Wasson, who has been 
reappointed to continue her service on the North Coast Regional 
Water Board. 

• Bev, who among other things, is a grape grower in 
the Alexander Valley of Sonoma County, but more than just 
growing grapes, Ms. Wasson had been a leader in the agricultural 
community, and has also demonstrated to other farmers that sound 
environmental practices make good business sense. She's shown 
the environmental community that agriculture can provide a net 

gain for water quality. 

She's a fine person and a good friend, and I 
certainly urge you to support her. 

While I can't stay for your full hearing, I'd 
also like to briefly introduce a long-time Humboldt County 
resident and friend of mine, Mr. John Corbett. Mr. Corbett was 
the long-time manager of the North Coast Cooperative. He's an 
attorney with a specialization in water quality law. 

You'll be having the opportunity to hear from 
John, and I'm sure you'll appreciate his unique qualifications 
and his ability to address some of the serious questions that I 
know the Committee has about what's gone on on the North Coast. 

But both of these board members have demonstrated 
a commitment to the Regional Board fulfilling its 
responsibilities to the waters of the North Coast. I urge your 
support . 

I want to thank the Committee for the time and 
the effort that you've put into meeting your serious oversight 
responsibilities today. 

Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Thank you very much, Senator 

Chesbro . 

Ms. Wasson. 

MS. WASSON: Thank you, and thank you, Senator 

Chesbro . 

I'm very glad to be here today, and good 
afternoon to you all. 

I've had the good fortune, and sometimes I 

question whether it's good fortune, of sitting on the Regional 
Water Board since May of ' 99 and have gotten to experience a lot 
of frustrations with working towards improving water quality on 
the North Coast. One of those has been not having quorums for a 
number of times during my tenure on the Board. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Is that lack of appointments? 

MS. WASSON: Lack of appointments, and also 
resignations . 

But it does not allow for the timeliness of 
hearing issues, and that's very, very important. And the one 
that, I guess, has brought us here is timber issues. And we 
have been dealing with them. And actually, even after I was 
appointed, there was an issue that had been brought before our 
board that has not been resolved totally to my satisfaction to 
date, but I think we are moving in that direction. It is 
something that is very serious, but it's also a serious issue 
for an industry and its survival. 

There are no easy decisions out there. And we 
have to look very carefully what kind of decisions we make as 
they affect everyone. One of the things that I've tried to do 
in my own community of agriculture is to use my own ranch and my 
parents' farm as -- 


MS. WASSON: Example. Actually had people come 
out for erosion control. And what we actually needed to do to 
improve the water quality on our own property. 

It's actually interesting. My parents have been 
farming in Alexander Valley in Sonoma County all of their lives, 

and their parents' lives, and my great-grandparents, who came to 
Sonoma County in the 1860s and '70s. 

And the practices have drastically changed, and 
the knowledge base has drastically changed. And it's this, to 
impart to the entire community what I've learned by sitting on 
this board is that I wear the hat for the public for water 
quality for everyone. And that -- what I've learned is that 
anything that you throw out into that environment gets in our 
water way. And the best way to keep it clean and pure and good 
is not to throw anything out in that water way. 

And we have to do that religiously, and we have 
to educate people to do that as well. 

And the issue of sediment, the best thing is not 
to have it there in the first place. And the knowledge on how 
to do that, that's our challenge as well as the other toxins 
that we face. 

So, I'm open to any questions. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Riunito ' s in the Alexander 

MS. WASSON: No, that's where I live. 

But I want you to know that across from Riunito 
is the Drake property, and that was my great-grandparents ' -- 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Drake's Beach? 

MS. WASSON: Drake's Beach, yes. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Are there still fights in 
Canyon Seven? 

MS. WASSON: Yes, I checked out. 

I wasn't there last night, but the night before, 

I'm sure there was. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Memories that linger. 

MS. WASSON: Yes. Actually, that moon is still 
up, I want you to know. They put it up every summer. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: This is very historic. 

Did you ever jump off the Hacienda Bridge? 

MS. WASSON: It wasn't there, so no, I have not. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: It was there. 

MS. WASSON: Yes, but I was in Alexander Valley 
when I was young and not very bright, because I wouldn't jump 
off it. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: That's when you would have 
jumped off the bridge. 

MS. WASSON: I didn't know how to swim. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Me neither, but I did it. Made 
four dollars. 

You know, more than 80 percent of the rivers and 
streams in the North Coast are listed as impaired because of the 
sediment build up. 

What steps could the Board take to try to deal 
with that? As you said, the best way to do it is to prevent it, 
but what steps do you see them being able to take? 

MS. WASSON: I think it's -- from what my reading 
is, and I just got -- I got to read the letter between Alexis 
Straus at EPA and Art Baggett. And they took five tributaries 
and kind of isolated things. 

And what it looks like is roads are the major 
concern; 70 percent of the sediment seems to be coming off roads 

and how they're designed. 

I think if we stepped up the priority of looking 
at road design and getting them in a priority basis, and getting 
them fixed, and making them sediment proofed. 

We've actually had some opportunities to do that. 
On the Resource Conservation District in Sonoma County they just 
did Palm Road, and they did out-slope. And there are designs, 
and there are ways in which to treat those roads so that they do 
not emit sediment. 

But again, the knowledge is letting everybody 
know that that's an issue. I've got other friends that have 
hunting claims, that every year go out with their D2s and clean 
up, you know, the ditches. And next year, after it rains, they 
do the same thing. And they need to be informed and directed 
how to stop that. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I would imagine there's a lot 
of community newspapers up in that area, right, weeklies and 
bi-weeklies, and whatever. 

Is there a way that the Board could put out 
notices in that? 

MS. WASSON: We actually have had a lot of 
training sessions. Again, it's making everybody aware. 

One of the best things that happened, and it 
wasn't our board that did it but the Sonoma County Board of 
Supervisors put in a Hillside Vineyard Ordinance. Since that 
has been in place, the increase in the amount of sediment 
control by farmers in the area has increased a hundred fold, and 
you really see it in the last five to ten years. It's very, 


very good. 

And how we've made that also work very well is 
for those that have been not too careful about their sediment 
getting into the stream way, they have been fined and have had 
to fix the situation and repair it. And that's the most 
important. Really, again, it's keeping the sediment out of the 
stream, not letting it get there. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Last week the Board issued a 
clean-up and abatement order to Pacific Lumber for sediment in 
the Elk River. 

Why it was issued is easy. Why it took so long, 
I think you mentioned that. 

What are the sanctions if the order's not obeyed? 

MS. WASSON: We will come back -- 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Maybe Art Baggett could come up 
and tell us what the State Water Board might do? 

MS. WASSON: Or Susan. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Art, do you want to just jump 
right in for a minute? 

MR. BAGGETT: Art Baggett, Chair of the State 
Water Resources Control Board. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Did you hear question? The 
question is, if Pacific Lumber, you know, does not obey the 
order, what could the State Board do to enforce it? 

MR. BAGGETT: You can go to court. There's fines 
for violation of a clean-up abatement order. Fines can be 
issued by the Regional Board or the State Board. You can go to 
court to enforce it through equity, through the normal processes 


of law that way also. I think even district attorneys -- 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: It's been a long time coming, 
so I assume if they don't follow the order, you're going to take 
some action. 

MR. BAGGETT: Right. And I think our Board and 
the Regional Board, if you look at the enforcement curve over 
the last three years, has been pretty substantial. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Okay, thanks. Thank you very 

MR. BAGGETT: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Does the Department of Forestry 
pay any attention to the comments you make on timber harvest 

MS. WASSON: I think they have heard us, but do 
they always agree with us, no. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Do they do anything? I mean, I 
know they get the letter. 

You don't have to be polite. I don't like them 
much . 

MS. WASSON: I really don't know, other than we, 
a couple of years ago, the Agency, the staff, made some 
recommendations to the Board of Forestry in regards to timber 
plans . 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: It's my sense you file like 53 
nonconcurrence just with some of the timber harvest plans in the 
last couple of years, and when you do that -- 

MS. WASSON: I think they haven't heard us as 
much as we'd like them to. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Okay, they haven't paid 
attention . 

MS. WASSON: But I think part of that reason is 
because the fish became the issue once they were listed as 
endangered. And sometimes old practices are hard to change. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Yeah, but it -- 

MS. WASSON: We need to. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Yeah, exactly. 

Does the State Water Board normally back you up 
if you need their back up? 

MS. WASSON: At times. They haven't all the 
time . 

Personally on this issue, I would have done it 
sooner than later, but we are trying to work within the system. 
And what we were trying to prevent was getting into the 
situation where it's a lawsuit, and it's going to take even 
longer . 

I would like to see Pacific Lumber clean up both 
Elk River and the fresh water creek, because those -- not only 
are they affecting the downstream landowners, but there's 
flooding, and those things need to be taken care of. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: It seems to me that some of the 
questions I'm asking, you ought to be asking them, because you 
send them information, comments, and they're so busy they don't 
seem to see fit to -- 

MS. WASSON: When we started that, it was at my 
suggestion, I believe, in September of 2000 that we have 
hearings on the fresh water and Elk River issues. And then we 


-- it was put off, and eventually vacated, but I had no say in 
the vacation. 

Actually I think, you know, what we're doing now 
is probably maybe more expedient that we'll get some action and 
actually get some of the sediment out of the streamway. Because 
that was my goal, let's fix it. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Johnson. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: No questions. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: You said the State Board 
usually went along with the Regional Board? 

MS. WASSON: At times. I mean, it becomes legal 
issues . 

SENATOR KARNETTE: But suppose you do want to 
sue, do you have to have the State Board and the Regional Board 
and Forestry -- 

MS. WASSON: It goes from the Regional Board to 
the State Board, and then it goes to Resources. There's a lot 
of steps. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: So, it takes a long time. 

MS. WASSON: It takes a long time. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: And if you wanted to speed it 
up, I'm really concerned about how the Legislature can help in 
this, because I don't know what the answer is. 

MS. WASSON: Sometimes, I mean, I would like -- 
we've had to go expeditiously and very carefully as well, 
because what we have a tendency to do, this is -- the issue is 
of a large timber company. There's a lot of also small 
landowners that have a few acres. I mean, this may be hundreds 


of acres, but they do sustainable harvesting. And once you 
start adding all these steps, it makes it almost impossible for 
them to get the value from the timber on their properties. 

And I'm not against logging, but I think you have 
to do it appropriately. In this case, I think this is a company 
that has wanted to get the assets off the property faster than 
the property can sustain it. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: Well, you mentioned hearings. 
Did you have the hearings? 

MS. WASSON: No, but I have all the paperwork for 
the hearings if you want about four boxes full of information. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: If you had hearings, if 
legislation were necessary, it could be developed after the 
hearings, perhaps? 

MS. WASSON: Probably, but I think, again, it 
would have probably been taken to court. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: Sometimes hearings work 
faster. But I'm just trying to figure out how -- 

MS. WASSON: I'm hoping the rest of the industry 
will take note and improve. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: I hope they do, too, because 
this is a big concern for everybody. 

MS. WASSON: It is a big issue. There's no 
question . 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Well, we have the Forestry 
Board coming up next January, I believe. At that time, they 
will have had a chance to do something or not. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: Do we approve them? 


CHAIRMAN BURTON: Well, we hear them. We don't 
necessarily approve them. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: Okay, thanks. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Knight. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: No questions. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: There was one other question to 
ask. Basically the questions really have to do not so much with 
what you did, but what the State Forestry Board didn't do when 
you sent them stuff. 

MS. WASSON: Well, I think the goal is to reduce 
the amount of sediment that gets in the streamway. And there 're 
definitely engineering techniques that can be used to do that. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: There is stuff they can do with 
existing roads? 


CHAIRMAN BURTON: Who would enforce that? Do you 
suggest it to whomever -- 

MS. WASSON: We're the ones that actually end up 
enforcing it if the sediment gets in the streamway. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: You have to wait until it 

MS. WASSON: That's unfortunate, but that's 
usually the fact, yes. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: And who would enforce it 
before, Forestry? 

MS. WASSON: It's usually voluntarily enforced by 
landowners observing their properties. 

I mean, you don't want to be the one that gets in 


harm 1 s way. 

But I'll tell you what we do on our property, 
because we have about ten acres of -- 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Well, I'm not worried about 
you. I'm worried about what -- 

MS. WASSON: But I mean, the landowner 
themselves, we don't have enough people to go out and observe 
all of them. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: But if the landowner allows 
this stuff to go into the water, conceivably they could end up 
being fined? 

MS. WASSON: That's right. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: And I guess you or somebody's 
got a list of the affected landowners. Can you like send them a 
circular saying, "Look, this is what happens. This could be 
done to prevent this, and it's probably in your interest to do 
it because, conceivably, you could be fined." 

MS. WASSON: Definitely. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Do you guys do that? 


CHAIRMAN BURTON: Do they pay attention? Some 
do, some don ' t . 

MS. WASSON: Actually, after you get some pretty 
big fines, it happens. And we actually have a couple of 
landowners, at least one landowner, that has spent some time in 
jail . 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Were they smart enough to say, 
"I ought to just do this so I don't have to get in trouble?" 


MS. WASSON: Actually, most of us have learned 
by, you know, watching what's happened over here. We don't want 
to go there. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Any witnesses in support? 
Witnesses in opposition? 

Move the nomination. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Karnette. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Karnette Aye. Senator Knight. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Knight Aye. Senator Johnson. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Johnson Aye. Senator Burton. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Burton Aye. Four to zero. 
[Thereafter, SENATOR ROMERO 
voted Aye, making the final 
vote 5-0 for confirmation.] 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Congratulations. 

MS. WASSON: Thank you very much. 


What would be helpful, Mr. Corbett, if you heard 
the questions that were asked previously, and maybe incorporate 
them into your statement, if you remember them. Otherwise, I'll 
repeat them. 



My name is John Corbett. I'm honored that I'm 


being considered by the Senate Rules Committee for appointment 
to the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board. 

Under the Porter-Cologne Act, the areas within 
our region, we're the primary state agency responsible for 
setting water quality standards, for enforcing waste discharge 
requirements, and for preserving the waters of the state for the 
use and enjoyment of our citizens. 

I bring to this position a broad experience in 
governmental procedures and decision-making, and I fully respect 
the separation of powers. To me, that means that we take the 
state law, we apply the facts to it, and we decide the issue 
fairly without allowing our personal biases to enter into it. 

I took the oath of office without any 
reservations whatsoever. And with that, I will close this 
statement and feel free to ask some questions. 

I will clarify a couple things based upon the 
past questions. 

The first is the Porter-Cologne Act under Section 
13308 does provide for civil penalties up to $10,000 a day for 
failure to comply with clean-up and abatement orders. So, my 
guess is, if there was a lack of compliance issue, there would 
be hearing and action on that. 

■ CHAIRMAN BURTON: You can impose, or the State 
Board imposes, or either? 

MR. CORBETT: The Regional Board can impose it, 
and then it is subject to review by the State Board. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: Can they overturn it. 

MR. CORBETT: I suspect anybody that can review 


something can overturn it, but before we cross that bridge, I 
would hope that mutual agreement -- 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: To you knowledge, they haven't 

done it yet? 


CHAIRMAN BURTON: You're fairly new to the Board; 


MR. CORBETT: Yes, that's correct. I was 
nominated in November, and had my first meeting, which was a 
study session, in December. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: How many meetings since? 

MR. CORBETT: We've met monthly since then. So, 
that would be -- 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Have you had quorum problems? 

MR. CORBETT: No. When I came on we had — 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Finally had the quorum? 

MR. CORBETT: We had the quorum; that's correct, 
sir . 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Again, a lot of the questions 
that I have are kind of what does the State Board of Forestry do 
when you ask them to do something, or call something to their 
attention. We figured out they don't do too much. I think 
that'll be something for them. 

Senator Johnson. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

This is not really directed at you. It just 
happens that the question occurs to me while you're sitting 
there . 


That is, since one of the nominees withdrew his 
name from consideration today, what does that do to the quorum 

MR. CORBETT: We will still have a quorum, sir. 


SENATOR KNIGHT: How many are we are short? 

MR. CORBETT: Three, so that's barely a quorum. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: What constitutes a quorum? 

MR. CORBETT: I believe it's five. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: How many on the Board? 


MR. CORBETT: Fully staffed, nine. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: You know, many years ago, the 
FBI saw people doing this, and they claimed it was the price of 
the bill. 

Do you remember that? 
[Laughter . ] 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: They were really setting up a 
tennis agreement. 

MR. CORBETT: I'll give my answer. To the best 
of my knowledge, it's nine fully staffed, and five is a quorum. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: And you have five on the Board 

or six 


MR. CORBETT: We have seven on the Board. 
CHAIRMAN BURTON: Seven now, so there's two 

MR. CORBETT: Right. There may be three. 
CHAIRMAN BURTON: Three with this guy. 

MR. CORBETT: I'm sorry. Three with Mr. Selvage. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: You might send the word. Maybe 
the Governor might consider some appointments. 

Because you can't take any action if you don't 
have a quorum; right? 

MR. CORBETT: That would be correct. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Nothing better than that if 
you're the one whom action was going to be taken against. 

Senator Karnette. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: No questions. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Witnesses in support? 
Witnesses in opposition? 

Move the nomination. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Karnette. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Karnette Aye. Senator Knight. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Knight Aye. Senator Johnson. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Johnson Aye. Senator Burton. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Burton Aye. Four to zero. 
[Thereafter, SENATOR ROMERO 
voted Aye, making the final 
vote 5-0 for confirmation.] 


MR. CORBETT: Thank you. 



MR. GRUNDY: Good morning, Mr. Chairman and other 
Members of the Committee. 

I want to thank you for this opportunity to 
appear before you as Governor Davis' nominee. 

I also wish to thank Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey 
and Assemblywoman Virginia Strom-Martin for their support of my 

I'll try to be brief. I used to work for the 
United States Senate. I found I got used to a lot of words. 

When I sought an appointment to the Regional 
Board, I had just returned to California after a 28 years' 
career with the United States Senate on energy and environmental 
issues . 

My desire was to apply this expertise that I 
acquired in the federal service to the achievement of the 
environmental goals here in the State of California. If 
confirmed, I commend myself to the responsibility that 
accompanies public service, and I commit myself to the people of 
the State of California to improve the water quality in the 
north coast region. 

I accept this position, anticipating some 
improvement in the water quality in the region during my tenure, 
for which there has been a poor legacy in the past. 

Today I will briefly address a couple of 
short-term and long-term things. Of particular concern to me is 
that 30 years have passed since enactment of the Federal Water 
Pollution Control Act, on which I worked, and enactment of the 
Porter-Cologne Act. 


While this progress has been made during this 
period -- while some progress has been made, as the Chairman 
said, most of the rivers in the northern part of the state are 
impaired, and they were not impaired 30 years ago. 

Your May letter to the nominees address many 
critical issues, which I fully agree with. Other issues that I 
think are of concern is the continuing dispute over what should 
be routine water quality monitoring practices. 

I come from the background where it is standard 
practice for pre and post monitoring of any projects that 
endanger water quality. I do not find that to be the standard 
practice here in California. In fact, I find that it's still in 
dispute . 

I also find here in California there's an 
extensive reliance upon waivers for the timber industry, as 
distinguished from what happens in the air pollution field, 
where you grant somebody a variance. To get the variance, you 
have to admit that you're subject to control, and you have to 
agree to do certain things. 

A waiver means you basically are exempt. And I 
really think that what's happened here is, the timber industry 
has developed a history of exemptions, and they are operating on 
the basis of thinking those exemptions are entitlements, and 
they ' re not . 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Whose fault is that? The 
grantor of the waiver? 

MR. GRUNDY: I think it's been the policy here 
that the -- I was going to get to that. 


The policy here is -- was to grant the waiver in 
the River Basin Plan amendment, and then put the burden upon the 
Regional Board, that if some somebody impaired the water, then 
they could come back and regulate them. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Who gives the waiver? 

MR. GRUNDY: The industry does. Not individual 
sources. It was done as a blanket waiver across the board. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: The forestry industry grants 
themselves a waiver? 

MR. GRUNDY: No. The River Basin Plan that was 
adopted by the state granted the waiver. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: And who would that be? Would 
that be the State Water Board, or the Regional, or whom? 

MR. GRUNDY: It was proposed, I believe, by the 
Regional Board and adopted by the State Water Board. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: So, the Regional Board at 
whatever time granted the waiver, and then the waiver was 

And the waiver's not like for three months. It's 
in perpetuity? 

MR. GRUNDY: Well, you just passed a new bill 
that requires that all these waivers be reviewed, and they can't 
be for more than five years. 

But what concerns me is, the effect of the waiver 
is, the statutes basically take a preventative approach to 
pollution and say the dischargers should demonstrate that 
they're not going to pollute. 

What the waiver has done is reversed that burden 


of proof, and the discharger is allowed to discharge, and then 
it's up to Regional Water Board to prove that they're having an 
effect upon the environment. So therefore, the Regional Water 
Board has to do the environmental monitoring, and the burden of 
proof is upon the public agency to catch people, basically. 

And I think that there is a movement to try and 
reverse that, but that's one of the fallacies of why we have a 
problem. The burden of proof is upon the regulatory body to 
catch — 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: When they go in with a plan and 
ask for a waiver, they don't have to prove that the waiver won't 
cause a problem? 

MR. GRUNDY: That's right. 


MR. GRUNDY: It's a bad deal. 

And to a large extent, that's what's been the 
problem with the timber harvest plans, is that the -- why 
there's been nonconcurrence, is that the staff have said to 
the -- the Regional Board staff have said to the regional 
forest service people that they haven't adequately demonstrated 
they're not going to cause a problem. 

And the forest service people say, "But we're 
following the practices in the book." 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: That they wrote. 

MR. GRUNDY: That forest service people wrote. 

And we're saying to them, "It isn't sufficient," 
particularly when you have your harvesting in multiple areas in 
the same watershed. 


But the burden of proof is upon the Regional 
Board to demonstrate, and go out and gather all the data. So -- 
and they have limited resources. 

The dispute resolution process, which we've tried 
to use four times, I understand, in the history, is that you go 
to the State Board, and the State Board goes to the State 
Forestry Department and resolves the dispute. The Regional 
Board does not have authority under the management agency 
agreement to resolve those disputes directly with the regional 
forestry department. 

It's obvious that when you buck everything to the 
state level, it becomes much more of a political issue than it 
would be if that management agency was rewritten to allow the 
Regional Board to do its own negotiation with the Department of 

That's been one of the problems. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Johnson. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: No questions, Mr. Chairman. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Knight. Senator 
Karnette . 

SENATOR KARNETTE: In order to remove that from 
the forestry plan, the management plan, that says they can have 
a waiver, what would that require? 

MR. GRUNDY: Legislation. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: That's what I thought. 

MR. GRUNDY: You have to go back to the 
Porter-Cologne Act. 


SENATOR KARNETTE: Legislation will do it? 

MR. GRUNDY: That's right. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: How old were you when you 
worked for the U.S. Senate? Just a kid out of college? 

MR. GRUNDY: I was 30. I went to work for Ed 
Muskie and Jennings Randolph when I was 30. I was with them for 
almost 10 years. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Any witnesses in support? 
Witnesses in opposition? 

Hearing none, move the nomination. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Karnette. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Karnette Aye. Senator Knight. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Knight Aye. Senator Johnson. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Johnson Aye. Senator Burton. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Burton Aye. Four to zero. 
[Thereafter, SENATOR ROMERO 
voted Aye, making the final 
vote 5-0 for confirmation.] 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Congratulations, sir. 

MR. GRUNDY: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I'd like to see you and the 
lady from Riunito to get together and start running that board. 

MR. GRUNDY: Okay. 



MR. HARMON: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and 
Senators . 

My name is Shawn Harmon. I'm a fourth generation 
Californian and a life-long resident of Ukiah, California. I'm 
a registered civil engineer, and I'm 33 years old. 

I'd like to acknowledge to you today that my 
participation as a Board member over the past eight months has 
been much more demanding than I envisioned when I volunteered 
for this position. I've spent countless hours reading volumes 
and volumes of material in an effort to become acquainted with 
the many issues and regulations that affect water quality in our 
region . 

This has been a huge undertaking, one which I 
have taken very seriously, and one which I hope to continue if 
given the opportunity. 

To be brief, I will close by saying that it is an 
honor to be here today. I hope to be able to answer any 
questions that you may have for me. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Thank you very much, 
Mr. Harmon. 

Some people have raised the issue that you were 
the only vote opposed to extending time for more public comment 
on the dioxin-related matter in the Madd River. 

Do you remember that? Do you remember what your 
feelings were on that? 

MR. HARMON: Yes, I do. 

The issue at hand, there was a request to allow 
introduction of comments, because apparently there wasn't enough 


time when staff's response to comments was submitted back. And 
basically, the issue was that our staff counsel had permitted -- 
or not permitted -- our staff counsel had advised that the 
procedure had been followed in terms of noticing and time to 
comment . 

So, their recommendation was that we would not be 
wrong to proceed with the hearing. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: You didn't have to. You didn't 
have to extend the time. 

MR. HARMON: Correct. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: But you could have? 

MR. HARMON: We could have, correct. They left 
the option up to the Board. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: You went along with the staff? 

MR. HARMON: Essentially, , based on staff 
counsel's advice, I followed what I -- 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: His advice was, you didn't have 
to. It wasn't that you couldn't; right? 

MR. HARMON: Correct. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Why do you think it took so 
long for the Board to issue the clean-up abatement order on 
Pacific Lumber? Do you have any idea? Lack of a quorum? Lack 
of will? What? 

MR. HARMON: Over the past several years, 
definitely I would say a lack of a quorum. Based on my 
knowledge that I've gained over the last eight months, it seems 
like there was a definite quorum problem. 

Also, I think defining the scope and the causes 


of the sedimentation in the streams, how you issue a clean-up 
and abatement order for -- 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Would you be willing to seek 
penalties on Pacific Lumber if they don't comply with the 

MR. HARMON: Absolutely. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: There's been a concern 
expressed, and I should have asked this of the other Board 
members, that the Executive Director seems to be a little lax in 
pursuing the duties for which the Board was created. 

I just hope that all three of you there would 
think about prodding the Executive Director, either to get on 
the ball or to find another job. 

You don't need to comment on it, but there's been 
a real concern that especially when you have a board made up of 
people that aren't doing it full-time, they've got a life to 
lead, that it's the full-time staff person that drives the 
engine. And if they aren't willing to aggressively pursue the 
mandate for which the Board was created, you know, it's kind of 
tough for people that are doing it on a public service part-time 
basis to do this. 

There has been, and there may be here, some 
opposition expressed. People that I've talked to think that you 
will enforce the laws that are in the books. And basically, the 
slot that you're in expires in about a year, and it's going to 
be my intention, at least for my own vote, to be supportive of 
you, which may or may not be a mixed blessing, but we're going 
to watch you, and if you're no good, you can't come back. 


But we'll be keeping an eye because this is a 
very important issue. And I think that, you know, a lot of 
stuff happens up in that area that those of us from the cities 
don't worry about, but there's a lot dealing with the sediment, 
a lot dealing with the fish, a lot dealing with the environment, 
and you guys are the cops. And we don't know what you're doing 
up there because we're not around. 

I think Strom-Martin and Senator Chesbro and the 
others know, but you're basically our law enforcement up there. 
We expect you to be fair, but we expect you to be right. 

I am of the belief that the timber industry just 
for years, because nobody was looking up there, and it's so 
important, and has been so important to the area, that, you 
know, they do pretty well, shall we say. I think a lot of the 
problem, I think, is with your Executive Director, and a lot of 
the problem's with the Board of Forestry. 

And one of the reasons that we did not set them 
for hearing today but in January is, I want to see how they 
perform. As Senator Johnson said, you just happened to be 
sitting here during this tirade, so it's not aimed at you. 

Senator Johnson. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: No questions. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Karnette. Senator 
Romero. Senator Knight. 

Witnesses in support? Witnesses in opposition? 

Hearing none, I'll move the nomination. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Karnette. 



SECRETARY WEBB: Karnette Aye. Senator Knight 

SECRETARY WEBB: Knight Aye. Senator Romero. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Romero Aye. Senator Johnson. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Johnson Aye. Senator Burton. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Burton Aye. Five to zero. 
CHAIRMAN BURTON: Congratulations. 
MR. HARMON: Thank you. 
[Thereupon this portion of the 
Senate Rules Committee hearing 
was terminated at approximately. 
4:50 P.M. ] 

--00O00 — 



I, EVELYN J. MIZAK, a Shorthand Reporter of the State 
of California, do hereby certify: 

That I am a disinterested person herein; that the 
foregoing transcript of the Senate Rules Committee hearing was 
reported verbatim in shorthand by me, Evelyn J. Mizak, and 
thereafter transcribed into typewriting. 

I further certify that I am not of counsel or 
attorney for any of the parties to said hearing, nor in any way 
interested in the outcome of said hearing. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 



day of C i-i^^/^iZ 

, 2002. 

~~A d 

Shorthand Reporter 


Richard D. GRUNDY 

950 Wikiup Drive 

Santa Rosa, California 95403-1305 

Mr. Grundy of Santa Rosa, has more than 30 years of experience in environmental and energy 
policy planning He is an engineer and the founder and president of Alexandria Energy 
Associates, which specializes in providing scientific and technical support to corporate and 
governmental clients on energy and environmental policies. Mr Grundy worked for nearly 28 
years as a senior staff member in the United States Senate with the Senate Committee on Energy 
and Natural Resource and with the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. He 
also served as a member of the United States delegation to the United Nations Intergovernmental 
Negotiations on Climate Change in 1973 and 1974. He also served as a sanitary engineer in the 
United States Public Health Service from 1959 to 1967. Mr. Grundy earned a bachelor of science 
degree in electrical engineering from Stanford University and a master of science degree in public 
health from the University of California, Berkeley. He also did pre-doctoral studies in sanitary 
and nuclear engineering at the University of California. 

Telephone: 707-570-2828 Fax: 707 570-2978 
E-mail: richard 


Statement (prepared August 6, 2002) 
Richard D. GRUNDY 

before the 

Senate Rules Committee 
Sacramento, California 
August 7, 2002 

Mr. Chairman and fellow members of the Committee. Thank you for this 
opportunity to appear before you today as Governor Davis' nominee to the North 
Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board. I also wish to thank Congresswoman 
Lynn Woolsey and Assemblywoman Virginia Strom Martin for their support of my 

Almost three years ago, I returned to California following a 28-year career as a 
senior professional staff member of the United States Senate. My issue portfolio 
emphasized Federal environmental and energy policies and programs, as well as the 
Congressional budget process. Among the environmental legislation that I had the 
privileged to work on under the chairmanship of Senator Edmund S. Muskie (D- 
ME) and Senator Jennings Randolph (D-WV) was the National Environmental 
Policy Act, the 1972 Federal Water Pollution Control Act, the 1967 Clean Air Act 
(and the 1970 and 1976 amendments) and the Resource Conservation and Recovery 
Act (and the 1976 amendments). I then worked for Senator Henry M. Jackson (D- 
WA) as chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Under 
his leadership I participated in the creation of the U.S. Department of Energy. 
Among the energy legislation I worked on was the 1978 National Energy Act and 
the 1994 National Energy Policy Act. 

When I sought appointment to the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control 
Board, my desire was to use the expertise I acquired in Federal public service in the 
furtherance of the environmental goals of my native state - California. 

If confirmed, I commit myself to the responsibility that accompanies public service 
and I commit myself to the people of the State of California to improve the quality 
of water in Northern California. I also accept this position anticipating some 
improvement in water quality during my tenure. 

With your indulgence, I offer the following general observations. In making these 
observations I am aware of the many ongoing statutory mandates - often unfunded 

Telephone: 707-570-2828 Fax: 707 570-2978 
E-mail: nchard^rundx «; 


Federal and state mandates - facing the Board. I also am fully aware that any new 
water quality initiatives ultimately must be reflected in the Board's annual budgets 
and various work plans, as well as policy and program directives. 

Today, 1 would like to briefly address some of my short-term and long-term goals 
for the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board. 

General Observation 

More than thirty years have passed since enactment of the Federal Water Pollution 
Control Act and the Porter Cologne Act. While progress has been made, almost 40 
percent of the Nation's waters still do not meet water quality goals established by 
States. Similarly, the water quality in many of the watersheds in California is 
considered impaired. 

After 30 years, I would have expected the environmental ethic to be ingrained in the 
manner by which public agencies and private corporations conduct their business in 
California. I thus am disturbed by the contentious nature of some of the water 
quality issues and challenges currently pending before the North Coast Regional 
Water Quality Board. 

Your May 2002 questions dealt with several critical issues such as comprehensive 
Watershed Management, the formulation and implementation of TMDLs (Total 
Maximum Daily Load), the impact of certain Forest Practice on water quality, and 
the need for uniform Enforcement Policies. I agree that these are four critical water 
quality issues that need to be addressed by the North Coast Regional Board. Other 
issues include continuing disputes over what should be routine water quality 
monitoring practices, and an extensive reliance on waivers for the timber industry 
and agriculture. The contmued lack of resolution of these issues, particularly 
waivers, results in the postponement of the enforcement actions necessary to 
achieve statutory goals and objectives we all have sought for 30 years. 

And, I ask that my full statement and my May 2002 responses to your questions be 
considered a part of my testimony. 

I support the resolution of North Coast water quality issues within the region. I 
also support effective in-stream monitoring of water quality prior to activities that 
will result in discharges into watersheds, as well as monitoring during and after such 
discharges have occurred. In addition, I support aggressive, but efficacious 



I believe that efficacious enforcement can be accomplished through a graduated 
reliance on the use of Discharge Permits, the issuance of Cease and Desist Orders, 
the submission of Reports of Waste Discharge and the imposition of Waste 
Discharge Requirements. I also support expedited mediation among the 
stakeholders such as those affected by the Humboldt Council petition involving the 
Pacific Lumber Company. 

2002 Strategic Plan 

The recent "2002 Strategic Plan " by the State Water Resources Control Board 
outlines a portfolio of strategic 5-year goals and objectives, as well as twenty-seven 
(27) key strategic projects. Among the goals are to make surface waters and ground 
waters safe for drinking and other beneficial uses. Among the objectives are to 
implement the watershed management initiative (including the development of 
maximum daily loads for impaired watersheds), to control non-point sources of 
pollution, to reduce storm water pollution, and to address ground water pollution. 
The challenge facing the Board and staff under current budget constraints is how to 
integrate these and the other goals and objectives into ongoing programs and 
activities of the North Coast Regional Board. 

Watershed Management 

Thirty years ago the initial priority of State and Federal water quality policies and 
programs focused correctly on the control and abatement of then existing point 
source discharges. Federal and state laws also recognized that comprehensive 
watershed management was eventually necessary for the successful long-term 
restoration and maintenance of water quality. Such an approach enables the 
integration of separate programs into a more holistic approach encompassing the 
comprehensive regulation and enforcement of both point and non-pomt discharges; 
for example, the regulation of storm water runoff and runoff from such multiple 
land uses as agriculture, timber harvesting, mine drainage, and range and dairy cattle 

The watershed management approach to water quality was recognized in the 1 995 
Watershed Management Initiative (WMI) approved by the State Water Resources 
Control Board. In response, the North Coast Regional Board currently is 
conducting a seven-year, multi-agency watershed assessment program. Among the 
goals of this legislative initiative is the development of baseline information and data 
to guide watershed restoration programs and cooperative efforts among the various 


Effective watershed management requires that all point and non-pomt sources within 
a watershed be inventoried. It also requires an understanding of the comparative 
contributions of such sources to the impairment of water quality. Moreover, this 
understanding must be available for each pollutant, such as sediment and 
temperature. A major risk of undertaking enforcement strategies that rely on 
watershed management is the potential for further delay in the achievement of 
improvements in water quality. 

Total Maximum Daily Loads 

Priority needs to be given to the development and implementation of Total 
Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for critical watersheds. This is a protracted 
process that will take years to implement, however. The TMDL process was 
formulated to identify those watersheds where existing discharge limitations are 
insufficient to achieve and maintain the required water quality objectives over the 

The first phase of the TMDL process is the inclusion of unpaired water bodies on 
the 303(d) list under Federal law. The second phase is to establish technical 
TMDLs for each pollutant. The third phase is the formulation of a TMDL 
implementation plan for each TMDL. The fourth phase is the conduct of duly 
noticed public hearing following a thorough public review and comment process. 
The Regional Board must then adopt the TMDLs and their implementation plans. 
The Regional Boards then must submit them for approval by the State Water 
Resources Control Board and the Office of Administrative Law. Only then can the 
TMDLs be incorporated in the North Coast Basm Control Plan as a basis for 

As the final phase, the requirements of the TMDLs implementation plans must be 
incorporated into the necessary permits and abatement orders to achieve the 
objectives of the TMDLs. It is envisioned that the TMDLs and their 
implementation plans will serve as the framework for National Pollution Discharge 
Elimination System (NPDES) Permits and Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs). 
These requirements also may include land use restrictions as well as pollution 
control measures. 

As stated earlier, the TMDL process is not a substitute for the immediate control 
and abatement of both point and non-point discharges. 



Enforcement Policies and practices. 

In my judgement, the North Coast Regional Board should give priority to 
implementation of the draft "State Water Quality Enforcement Policy" and the 
recommendations contained in the 1999 legislative analysis. The North Coast 
Regional Water Quality Control Board is the State agency with primary 
responsibility for the coordination and control of water quality in the North Coast 
Region. As stated in the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act the "state must 
be prepared to exercise its full power and jurisdiction to protect the quality of the 
waters in the state from degradation." I agree that "the timely and consistent 
enforcement of these laws is critical to the success of the water quality program and 
to ensure that the people of the state have clean water." 

I support an enforcement strategy that requires any potential discharger demonstrate 
in advance that their discharges will not result in any degradation or impairment of 
water quality. I support effective in-stream monitoring prior to activities that will 
result in discharges into watersheds. I also support a graduated enforcement 
strategy that relies on Discharge Permits, the issuance of Cease and Desist Orders, 
the submission of Reports of Waste Discharge, the imposition of Waste Discharge 
Requirements, and effective pre- and post-project in-stream monitoring. 

Current Timber Harvest Practices 

I believe that priority should be given to the reversal of the impairment of water 
quality in the North Coast region that has resulted from current and past timber 
harvest practices. Similarly, priority needs to be given to certain present and future 
timber harvest operations; particularly, the potential and existing consequences from 
cumulative timber harvests in certain watersheds. 

Sediment impairment of water quality in the North Coast region has been a matter of 
concern to the Regional Board for many years. The Regional Board's "Water 
Quality Control Plan " contains an "Action Plan for Logging Construction, and 
Associated Activities" which states that: "The Regional Board considers that 
implementation of the discharge prohibitions relating to logging, construction, or 
associate activities can provide appropriate protection to water of the region from 
these sources of waste, ..." 

However, the Regional Board's "Water Quality Control Plan " goes on to state that 
"in the great majority of these activities, will waive the need for Reports of Waste 
Discharge and Waste Discharge Requirements." The "Water Quality Control 



Plan " then observes that "where investigations indicate that the beneficial uses of 
water may be adversely affected by waste discharges, the staff will require 
submission of Reports of Waste Discharge." In my judgment, the effect of this 
waiver is to reverse the burden of proof from the discharges - to prove that the 
beneficial uses in the watershed are not impaired - to that of the North Coast 
Regional Board - to prove that such beneficial uses are impaired. 

Burdens of Proof 

I believe that industrial timber harvest operations should be subjected to the same 
burden of proof as other industrial waste dischargers. One of the intents of the 
national goals set forth in section 101(a)(1) of the Federal Pollution Control Act is to 
place the burden of proof on industrial waste discharges with the phrase that "the 
discharges of pollutants into the navigable waters are eliminated by 1985." 
Similarly, paragraph (7) establishes as a national objective that "programs for the 
control of non-pomt sources of pollution be developed and implemented in an 
expeditious manner so as to enable the goals of [the FWPCAct] be met through the 
control of both point and non-point sources of pollution." 

Regulation of Timber Harvests 

The North Coast Regional Board is the primary agency responsible for protection of 
the beneficial uses of water within the North Coast Region. However, the State 
Water Resources Resource Control Board effectively delegated that authority to the 
Department of Forestry in 1988 when it designated the Board of Forestry (BOF) and 
the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF) as the water quality 
management agencies for non-federal, forested lands in California. Subsequently, a 
1988 Management Agency Agreement was entered into among three agencies to 
improve the forest practice rules for the protection of water quality. 

However, this interagency agreement has not resulted in an effective upgrading of 
Forest Practice Rules to reflect the Board' concerns for their impact on water 
quality. Those improvements in timber harvest practices that have occurred were 
as a result of the Federal Endangered Species Act. For years the North Coast 
Regional Board and the California Department of Forestry have been unable to 
resolve certain issues regarding the impact of certain timber harvest procedures on 
water quality such as the cumulative impact of multiple timber harvest plans within a 
watershed. Consequently, the Board is forced to disagree with the CDF's approval 
of numerous timber harvest plans in impaired watersheds. This situation needs to be 


resolved for the benefit of water quality. 

I understand that the BOF finally is undertaking a long awaited upgrade of its 
Forest Practice Rules. An issues of concern is establishment of a mutually 
satisfactory approval process that effectively considers the cumulative impact of 
multiple timber harvest plans in the same watershed. I have already discussed with 
the Executive Director the continuing need to support the timely revisions of the 
Forest Practice Rules so that they will more effectively achieve water quality 

Humboldt Watershed Council Petition 

I believe that the issues of water quality in the North Coast region should be 
resolved among the various stakeholders by the North Coast Regional Water 
Quality Board- not at the state level. For many reasons, the petition by the 
Humboldt Watershed Council has languished for too long before the regional and 
State boards. And I agree with this committee that abatement of the water quality 
issues addressed by the petition needs to be addressed by the Board and resolved. 

At it April 2002 meeting, the Board did not decide whether, or not, to instruct the 
Executive Director to require the submission of Reports of Waste Discharge for any 
portion of the five affected watersheds. The Board reserved that decision for the 
future and at the April meeting for now left that decision to the Executive Director 
- which she exercised this week for winter operations by Pacific lumber in the Elk 
River watershed. 

At its April 2002 meeting, I supported the Board's decision to explore the use of an 
expedited mediation by the affected local stakeholders and now serve on a 
subcommittee to move the process forward. The objective is to obtain some 
immediate improvements in water quality, rather than take an enforcement action 
that would lead to further delays as a consequence of additional regulatory appeals 
and litigation. In the interim, the Board directed the Executive Director to give 
priority to Cleanup and Abatement Orders, and such an order was issued last week 
by the Executive Director. 


Eight months ago when I attended my first meeting of the North Coast Regional 
Board, I knew it launched a new chapter in my professional life. However, I did not 



fully appreciate the severe budgetary constraints that would be imposed on the 
regional water quality controls Boards. The expertise of the Board's Executive 
Director and staff are exceptional; however, they are severely constrained to carry 
out their various statutory and administrative mandates to protect and enhance water 

Similarly, I did not appreciate the amount of time and effort that would be required 
to fulfill my obligation as a Constitutional officer of the State of California. 
Moreover, I did not appreciate that my ability to meet those same Constitutional 
obligations would be severely constrained by outdated statutory budgetary 
limitations enacted in another time and place - reportedly the mid-1 970's. [For 
example, regional air pollution control Hearing Board members are compensated 
$400 per day and meet an average of three days a month. By comparison, Regional 
Water Quality Control Boards are compensated $100 per day and meet about eleven 
(11) times a year.] Thus the availability of Board members is for the most part 
limited to monthly Board meetings which deal with urgent agenda items and those 
non-delegatable duties set forth in section 13255 of the Porter-Cologne Act. 

When the Board's monthly agenda is then overlaid with such issues as the 
Humboldt Watershed Council Petition, little if any time is available for oversight of 
the ongoing programs and activities of the regional Board, such as watershed 
management initiatives, TMDL development and implementation, and the 
incorporation of new statewide environmental justice and enforcement policies into 
the Board's programs. 

Consequently, the means by which various initiatives are incorporated into the 
regional board's program priorities and budgets is, for the most part, left to the 
discretion of the Executive Director and staff with nominal input from the chairman 
and Board members. This observation is not meant as a criticism of the Executive 
Director - who is doing a remarkable job under present budgetary constraints. As 
Constitutional officers of the State, it is our responsibility as Board members to 
provide guidance and counsel to the Executive Director and Board staff which we 
are not able to do under the present constraints. . 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to share with you my thoughts and 
observation regarding my perceived priorities for the North Coast Regional Water 
Quality Board. 

Additional copies of this publication may be purchased for $3.00 per copy 
(includes shipping and handling) plus current California sales tax. 

Senate Publications 

1020 N Street, Room B-53 

Sacramento, CA 95814 


Make checks payable to SENATE RULES COMMITTEE. 





ROOM 3191 



OCT ~ 2 20Q2 


4:21 P.M. 

463- R 




ROOM 3191 


4:21 P.M. 

Reported by; 

Evelyn J. Mizak 
Shorthand Reporter 




GREG SCHMIDT, Executive Officer 
PAT WEBB, Committee Secretary 

NETTIE SABELHAUS, Consultant on Governor's Appointments 


JAMES E. HALL, Warden 
Ironwood State Prison 

ROY MABRY, State President 

Association of Black Correctional Workers 

RICHARD TATUM, State President 

California Correctional Supervisors Organization 


Northern California Women's Facility, Stockton 

CHESTER GOYNES, Correctional Lieutenant 
California Correctional Supervisors Organization 










CCPOA, California State Prison at Solano 

California State Lottery Commission 

Stephen P. Teale Data Center 




Proceedings 1 

Governor ' s Appointees : 

JAMES E. HALL, Warden 

Ironwood State Prison 1 

Background and Experience 1 

Questions by SENATOR KARNETTE re: 

Education Programs 1 

Questions by SENATOR ROMERO re: 

Status of Air Conditioning at Prison 2 

Adaptations to Deal with Energy Crisis 2 

Commendation for Stellar College Program 5 

Witnesses in Support : 

ROY MABRY, State President 

Association of Black Correctional Workers 6 

RICHARD TATUM, State President 

California Correctional Supervisors Organization 6 

Motion to Confirm 6 

Committee Action 7 


Northern California Women' s Facility, Stockton 8 

Background and Experience 8 

Questions by SENATOR KARNETTE re: 

Educational Programs 8 


Questions by SENATOR KNIGHT re: 

Origin of Educational Grants 9 

Questions by SENATOR ROMERO re: 

High Percentage of No-shows for 

Dental Appointments 10 

t> Long Waiting Period for Nonemergency 

Health Care appointments 10 









Witnesses in Support: 

9 ROY MABRY, State President 

Association of Black Correctional Workers 11 


Local CCSO Chapter 32 12 

RICHARD TATUM, State President 

California Correctional Supervisors Organization 12 

14 GERALD GREENWELL, Chief Job Steward 

CCPOA, California State Prison, Solano 12 

Motion to Confirm 13 

Committee Action 13 


California State Lottery Commission 14 

Background and Experience 14 

Questions by SENATOR KARNETTE re: 

Brochure on Problem Gambling 15 

Questions by SENATOR ROMERO re: 

Possibility of Raising Gambling Age to 

Twenty- one as Opposed to Eighteen 16 

Motion to Confirm 17 

Committee Action 17 



Stephen P . Teale Data Center 18 

Questions by SENATOR JOHNSON re: 

Governor's Executive Order re: Security 

of Computer Systems 18 

Basis for Certification that Security 

Measures Were in Place at Teale 19 

Type of Evaluation Executed to Ensure 

Patches Had Been Installed 20 

Application of Patches 21 

Timeframe for Applying Patches 21 

Human Error in Failing to Apply Patch to 
Controller' s Primary Server 22 

Detailed Audit to Determine Which Computers 

Had Failed to Get Needed Patches 22 

Responsibility to Sign-off When Applying 

Patches 23 

Number of Patches Not Applied 24 

Questions by SENATOR KARNETTE re: 

Keeping Logs to Verify Maintenance of 

Systems 25 

Number of Different Logs 25 

Identifying Which System Might Have 

Problem 26 

Questions by SENATOR JOHNSON re: 

Log Maintained Prior to Incident with 
Controller' s Data 2 7 

Loss of Jobs Because of Incident 2 8 

VI 1 









Steps Taken to Ensure Incident Won't 

Happen in Future 29 

Employees' Need to Understand Penalties for 

Not Complying with Policies and Procedures .... 29 

Need for Accountability 30 

Questions by SENATOR KARNETTE re: 

Possibility of Outsourcing at Data Center 30 

Inability to Quickly Replace Employees 

Due to Hiring Freeze 31 

Questions by SENATOR JOHNSON re: 

Information Security Officer Vacancy 

Due to Hiring Freeze 32 

Questions by SENATOR KNIGHT re: 

Knowledge that Server Security 

Has Been Breached 32 

Basis of Notification of Security 

Breaches 33 

17 Employment of Hacker to Verify 

Systems' Security 34 

Questions by SENATOR ROMERO re: 

Awareness of Break-in of Controller's 

Data at Time of Initial Appearance before 

Rules Committee in April 35 

Procedure Taken to Ensure Immediate 

Notification of Any Break-ins 35 

Servers Outside the Firewall at Teale 36 

:5 Statement of Intent by SENATOR JOHNSON re 

26 Put Appointment over for Vote 37 

Termination of Proceedings 3 7 

Certificate of Reporter 38 

— 00O00 — 

CHAIRMAN JOHNSON: Item Three, Governor's 
Appointees, the first is James Hall, Warden, Ironwood State 

Come forward, sir. Have a seat. You may begin, 
and fire when ready. 

MR. HALL: Thank you very much. I'm James Hall, 
Warden at Ironwood State Prison. 

Chairman Johnson and respected Members of the 
Committee, I appreciate the opportunity today to come before you 
and answer any questions that you may have about myself or my 
operations at Ironwood State Prison. 

I began with the Department of Corrections 
approximately 27 years ago at San Quentin State Prison, and I've 
worked five different institutions with various levels, from 
maximum to minimum. 

Again, I'm available to you to answer any 
questions that you may have at this time. 

CHAIRMAN JOHNSON: Senator Karnette. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: I would just like to hear 
about your programs, your education programs. Would you tell us 
just a little bit about that? You're working with the community 


MR. HALL: Yes. You would probably be referring 

to the college program. 


MR. HALL: Our community college in the local 


community down there is called Palo Verde College, and they have 
2 an EOPS grant fund that they use and allow our inmates to 

participate in AA-level college education programs. 
4 At the present time, we have slightly under 300 

inmates involved in the program, actually enrolled and taking 
6 college classes to work toward their AA degree. We graduated 

two inmates in July. We anticipate we'll graduate another 40 

inmates in December with AA degrees, and thereafter, even larger 
9 numbers. 

10 We've also proposed — I have proposed to the 

11 Department an escalation of that number up to 800, and I'm 

12 really hoping that we're going to be able to do that, to 

13 establish ourselves as one exceptional academic community. 

14 SENATOR KARNETTE: Thank you. I commend you for 

15 that. 

16 MR. HALL: Thank you. 

17 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON: Senator Romero. 

18 SENATOR ROMERO: Thank you. 

19 Let me ask a couple of questions. You're from 

20 Blythe. I'm originally from Barstow. 

21 It gets hot there; right? 

22 MR. HALL: Yes. 

23 SENATOR ROMERO: What is the status of air 

24 conditioning there at the prison? What kinds of concerns might 

25 you raise? 

26 As we've gone through this energy crisis, what 

27 adaptations has the prison made to deal with the crisis that has 

28 unfolded in California? 

MR. HALL: There's little that we've been able to 
do to adapt to the energy crisis per se, outside of doing some 
of the remedial things that you have to do within any 
environment: making sure that lights turned off, and that 
you're only using power during those periods which are not peak 
energy consumption times. 

But we have in our institution two different 
types of cooling systems. One is a refrigerated air system, 
but very few of the buildings actually have that. 

The other systems that are in place primarily in 
the housing units are swamp cooler type design. Although that 
takes the temperature in the housing units down, when it's mixed 
with humidity, an 83 degree temperature in a housing unit with 
high humidity can appear rather warm. 

So, we do have cooling techniques that we use. 
We have 16 ice plants or ice machines that we use at the 
institution that produce a tremendous amount of ice. And we 
also supplement that with purchases of ice. 

During the four month part of the year last year 
that was hottest, we used over three million pounds of ice, and 
provided that in water, and put that in coolers both within the 
units, in the program areas, and on the yards so the inmates 
have the opportunity to cool themselves. 

We also allow inmates to clothe themselves 
differently during the hot summer months and to wear looser 
clothing. That's within the facility so it doesn't become a 
security risk. 

Also, too, in our programs, if we have an 

academic or an education program that becomes too warm to have 
2 that quality exchange of studies, then we will shut that 

program, if necessary, down temporarily and allow those inmates 
to return to the yards and to their facilities, and at no cost 
to them as far as their credit earning is concerned. We give 
6 them as time for that. 

So, we use a lot of different techniques. And we 
also will put fans in strategic locations in the units. But 
9 generally our temperatures in the units have not exceeded 

10 approximately 80 to 83 degrees. Sometimes they may go up as 

11 high as 85 degrees. That isn't particularly warm, but when 

12 mixed with humidity, it can become a problem. 

13 The long range plan that I'd like to see and that 

14 I will be submitting is a request for a budget change proposal, 

15 capital outlay proposal, to change those air handlers out to a 

16 refrigerated air type. 

17 They are experimenting at Chuckawalla Valley 

18 State Prison with a screen door type device, which is a security 

19 type screen in the front of their units. But their design is a 

20 little different, in that they have a dormitory setting as 

21 opposed to a cell setting. So, the inmates that are in the 

22 cells are pretty much confined within those cells and subjected 

23 to whatever 's coming through the air vents. So, that really 

24 wouldn't be particularly helpful. 

25 So, I think we need to do a COBCP and, hopefully, 

26 remedy that problem. But there are a lot of cooling techniques 

27 and things that we do operationally to help. 

28 I might also point out that the Blythe community 

has been there and established for quite some time. And you 
have Palm Springs, and Phoenix, and other communities in 
tremendously hot regions. 

And we do find, though, that the inmates as well 
as the population do adapt to that particular climate, and they 
do recreate, and they do all of the kinds of things that other 
people do. In fact, the inmates quite often spend, even on the 
hottest days, time playing basketball, or playing baseball, or 
soccer, or those kinds of things. So, they do acclimate to the 
climate, so to speak. 

But there are some long range plans that I'd like 
to see to ameliorate part of that problem. 


Senator Karnette asked about the educational 
program. I'd like to especially commend you on what sounds like 
a stellar college program. I'm hopeful that this information is 
getting out to the other wardens, and we can perhaps take look 
at how we can encourage these types of programs to go statewide. 

So, congratulations on that program. 

MR. HALL: Thank you very much. We're very 
pleased and proud of the program. We have shared it with other 
institutions. And Mr. Vaughn next door, at Chuckawalla Valley 
State Prison, is also working right now with Palo Verde College 
to begin a program at that institution. 


CHAIRMAN JOHNSON: Senator Knight. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: No questions. 

CHAIRMAN JOHNSON: Witnesses in support. 

MR. MABRY: Good afternoon, Chairman Johnson and 
the Rules Committee Members. 

My name is Roy Mabry, State President, 
Association of Black Correctional Workers. 

I'm here today to completely support Mr. Hall for 
confirmation as Warden. And I think his history, as you well 
know, speaks for itself. 

Sir, I'd like to say to you, congratulations. 

And if the Committee Members have any questions, 
I'll be pleased to answer those. 


Further witnesses in support? Yes, sir. 

MR. TATUM: Committee Members, Senator Johnson, 
I'm Richard Tatum, the State President of the California 
Correctional Supervisors Organization, here to request your 
support for Mr. Hall's confirmation. 

He has been in Corrections a lot of years with 
it. Lots of experience. And he has the ethics and the things 
needed to be a warden. 

And we request that you confirm him. Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN JOHNSON: Thank you, sir. 

All right, any more witnesses in support? 

Witnesses in opposition? 

None appearing, what's the pleasure of the 


SENATOR KNIGHT: Move the nomination. 
CHAIRMAN JOHNSON: Do you have any family 


MR. HALL: Yes, I do. 

Very briefly, I'll just start with my wife, my 
inspiration, Lorraine Hall. 

And it could probably take me quite sometime, 
because we have a number of family members here. I have my 
mother here, my grandmother. She came all the way up from Pico 
Rivera to be here today. I appreciate that. 

So anyway, I would like to introduce them briefly 
and thank them very much for all the support, particularly my 
wife, who's put up with me for quite some time. 

SENATOR ROMERO: Notice, he pointed out the 
women . 

CHAIRMAN JOHNSON: I'm a married man myself. 
[Laughter. ] 

CHAIRMAN JOHNSON: There's been a motion. 
Secretary, call the roll. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Karnette. 



Karnette Aye. Senator Knight 

Senator Romero. 

Knight Aye. 


Romero Aye. 
CHAIRMAN JOHNSON: Congratulations. 
MR. HALL: Thank you. 
CHAIRMAN JOHNSON: Suzan Hubbard, Warden, 

Senator Johnson. 

Four to zero. 


1 Northern California Women's Facility, Stockton. 

2 MS. HUBBARD: Good afternoon, Senator Johnson and 
other Members of the Senate Rules Committee. 

4 Thank you for your consideration today as my 

confirmation as Warden of the Northern California Women's 

6 Facility in Stockton. 

I believe that my formal education, with a degree 
in social work from the University of California at Berkeley, 
and my near 23 years of experience in California prisons, to 

10 include San Quentin State Prison, CSP Solano, California Medical 

11 Facility, CSP Sacramento, Mule Creek State Prison, Central 

12 California Women's Facility — 

13 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON: It might be better if you told 

14 us where you hadn't worked. 

15 [Laughter. ] 

16 MS. HUBBARD: — and the Northern California 

17 Women's Facility have well prepared me for the position of 

18 Warden. 

19 I would like to express my appreciation to the 

20 staff at each of those prisons for their unwavering professional 

21 support. 

22 I would be happy to address any questions you may 

23 have. 

24 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON: Senator Karnette. 

25 SENATOR KARNETTE: Do you have an educational 

26 program as well of some kind? Would you tell us just a little 

27 about it? 

28 MS. HUBBARD: Yes. We have just entered into a 


partnership with St. Mary's College in Moraga. They have 
received a grant to come to our prison and provide an AA program 
for our inmates. It will be at no cost to the state or to the 
inmates . 

We had 80 inmates show up -- 

SENATOR KARNETTE: You said it's no cost to the 
state . 

MS. HUBBARD: How do we do that? St. Mary's is a 
private college, and they are providing all the instructors and 
the course work materials to us. 

They received a grant, and they're interested in 
providing a college program to women. They knocked on our door. 
There's a former CDC employee that works at St. Mary's, and we 
were very glad to welcome them at our prison. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: Where do the grants come from? 

MS. HUBBARD: St. Mary's arranged for that, 
Senator, so I'm not aware of that. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: Federal grants or state 

MS. HUBBARD: I don't know. I can find that out 
for you, though, Senator. 

CHAIRMAN JOHNSON: Further questions? Senator 


Again, I'm interested in the educational issues, 
so I'll want to learn more about the college program as well. 

Let me ask you about some of your responses on 
the health care issues, a couple of concerns that I had. And 


that is that when Senate staff visited, they were informed that 

2 there's approximately a 40 percent no-show rate for 

3 appointments. 

4 Can you help the Committee understand what 

5 contributes to this? 

6 MS. HUBBARD: In recently becoming aware of that, 
I found two issues. One in a no-show rate for inmates that 

8 would come to our dental clinic for appointments that they had 

9 been given duckets or appointments, but they were just not 

10 showing up. 

11 We have systems within the prison to go look for 

12 those inmates. We're responsible to know where inmates are at 

13 all times, but our health care staff had not been doing that. 

14 So, we formed a committee. We re-educated people 

15 about how we can go and find inmates, get them off their job, 

16 get them out of their cell block, and get them to their 

17 appointments. That has already had a tremendous impact. 

18 SENATOR ROMERO: So, you believe that you're 

19 beginning to see a turnaround, and we shouldn't see that 40 

20 percent number if we were to go back and visit in a certain 

21 period of time? 

22 MS. HUBBARD: That's correct. 

2 3 SENATOR ROMERO: Then just a second question 

24 related to health care, and that's for nonemergency appointments 

25 as well, too. 

26 There is on average it looks like about a 

2 "7 three-month waiting period. Again, what contributes to that? 

28 Seems like a long delay. 


MS. HUBBARD: There's a combination of issues 
there. We're a very small facility. So, besides the on-site 
staff that we have, many of our inmates have to go to the 
community for their services. So, there's issues of the health 
care manager evaluates and decides the order that the inmates 
will go out in. 

And then, we are using the facilities that other 
community members are using, so we are having to make 
appointments with doctors just like other citizens in the 
community. So many times, we are having to wait for 
appointments for our inmates. 


CHAIRMAN JOHNSON: Senator Knight. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: No questions. 

CHAIRMAN JOHNSON: Two of my top staff people 
have recently been in your prison. I hasten to add as 
visitors . 

Can we hear from witnesses in support, please. 

MR. MABRY: Hi again. Roy Mabry, State 
President, Association of Black Correctional Workers. 

Generally I'll do support for the other candidate 

if that's my intent when I come up and do the initial 

conversation, but because of Sue trying to get here so many 

times, I want to make a personal appearance to come up and do 


We're giving her 100 percent of our support, and 

I'm finally glad we got to this point without a lot of 












CHAIRMAN JOHNSON: Thank you, sir. 

Further witnesses in support? 

MR. GOYNES: My name is Chester Goynes. I'm a 
lieutenant at NCWF. I'm also the President of CCSO, the local 
Chapter 32. 

We are in full support of Ms. Hubbard. I think 
that she'll do a good job. She is very professional. She has 
provided training for supervisors with a shoe-string budget, and 
I just want to congratulate her. 

I hope that you go ahead and make that 



CHAIRMAN JOHNSON: Thank you, sir. 

Any more witnesses in support? Please, come on 

MR. TATUM: I'm Richard Tatum, the State 

President — 


MR. TATUM: Yeah, still here. 

California Correctional Supervisors Organization. 

I'd just like to say that Ms. Hubbard, we fully 
support her and the chapter does. I think that it's been a long 
time coming, and the Department's missed out on not having a 
very good Warden. 

We request that you confirm. 

CHAIRMAN JOHNSON: Remedy that error, we got 

Further witnesses in support? Yes, sir. 

MR. GREENWELL: I'm Officer Greenwell, Gerald 


Greenwell, from CSP Solano. I'm the Chief job Steward there for 

I fully support Sue Hubbard. We may have had our 
differences sometimes, but that's part of the business, nothing 
personal. And I think she'd make a very good Warden. 

Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN JOHNSON: Thank you, sir. 

Witnesses in opposition? 

Do you have any family here that you'd care to 

MS. HUBBARD: Yes, I do. I have my father, Dan 
Chandler. And the man of my dreams, Mel Hamilton. 

And I would like to acknowledge, there's many 
other people in the room that are part of, as my friend Theresa 
would say, my Corrections family. I thank them for being here. 


What's the pleasure of the Committee? 


CHAIRMAN JOHNSON: Secretary, call the roll. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Karnette. 



Karnette Aye. Senator Knight 


Knight Aye. Senator Romero. 


Romero Aye. Senator Johnson. 
SECRETARY WEBB: Johnson Aye. Four to zero. 


CHAIRMAN JOHNSON: Congratulations. 
MS. HUBBARD: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN JOHNSON: Stacy Faierman-Marks to the 
State Lottery Commission. 

I hope I didn't mangle your name. 

MS. FAIERMAN-MARKS: You actually did a very good 



Well, I ought to quit while I'm ahead, but go 

right ahead. 

MS. FAIERMAN-MARKS: I feel so lonely. 
Everyone's leaving. 

Thank you for this opportunity, Senator Johnson 
and fellow Committee Members. 

As you said it so correctly, my name's Stacy 
Faierman-Marks. And I am here to hopefully be confirmed for the 
California State Lottery Commission position. 

I feel like this is a position I was made for. 
One of these days I've always dreamed about because of my 
background. I'm a lawyer, and also I founded a business, which 
the business is a business which consists of basically trying to 
get education to as many people as possible, quality 
information. And as a result of that, I had a penchant for 
being in this position as a Commissioner, since the money, as 
per the public benefit for the California State Lottery Act, 
does go to education. 

And if there's any other questions you'd like to 
ask based on my statement and goals and my personal history, I'd 


be happy to answer them. 

CHAIRMAN JOHNSON: Senator Karnette. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: There was one thing. I know 
Senator Burton, since he isn't here, he was concerned about that 
brochure. Do you remember the brochure that was brought up? 
Are you familiar with what I'm talking about? 


SENATOR KARNETTE: I had forgotten about it. 
Have you looked at that? 

MS. FAIERMAN-MARKS: Great minds think alike, 
because the Lottery would agree with Senator Burton. 

Just to give you a little history, to expand on 
that, as I understand it, this relates to the problem gambling 

And the Lottery has been very proactive with that 
situation. And over the last three years, we have . instituted a 
program. Been very proactive in trying to basically get 
awareness out to the people of the problem gambling situation 
and provide services. 

So, as part of that program, what we have done 
is, we have one item is the brochure. That's in addition to us 
printing on our Instant Game tickets 1-800 numbers, which 
connects people to 24-7 trained counselors. So, there will be 
always someone there available if someone calls that number. 

The brochure, which is available at retailers, 
has detailed information which people can read to help them with 
problem gambling. 

I believe the issue that Senator Burton had was 


that it was basically user unfriendly. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: That was his issue. 

MS. FAIERMAN-MARKS: So, in terms of that, the 
Lottery would agree with that, and they are now in the process 
of making it user friendly, and trying to make it -- as I 
understand, there was a lot of content on that. And they're 
:ng to streamline that to make it -- so that there's more 
bullet points and more readable. 

CHAIRMAN JOHNSON: Senator Romero. 

SENATOR ROMERO: The National Gambling Commission 
has discussed the issue of 18-year-olds gambling. There's been 
a suggestion of looking at raising that age to 21. 

What are your thoughts on that end? What do you 
cite as a reason to support your position? 

MS. FAIERMAN-MARKS: In terms of just as a 
general rule of thumb, as a Lottery Commissioner,- I put aside my 
personal thoughts, and basically I would vote in favor or 
against whatever the Legislators believe is appropriate, because 
that is a hot issue, and you do have more information. 

What I see before me is that right now, in terms 
of what 18-year-olds are allowed to do, they're allowed to vote. 
They're allowed to smoke. They're allowed to drive. 

SENATOR ROMERO: Blame the Legislature as well on 

MS. FAIERMAN-MARKS: On the other hand, they 
aren't allowed to drink. 

So, I would basically bow down to what the 
Legislature believes is appropriate. 


SENATOR KNIGHT: They're allowed to fight, too. 

MS. FAIERMAN -MARKS: And they're allowed to thank 
you, and be nice to you. 


CHAIRMAN JOHNSON: Senator Knight. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: No questions. 

CHAIRMAN JOHNSON: Witnesses in support? 
Witnesses in opposition? 

Have you any family members you'd care to 

MS. FAIERMAN -MARKS: I was tempted to bring my 
three-month-old baby, but at this point I might be burping him 
or feeding him, so I declined. 

CHAIRMAN JOHNSON: All right, no three-month-old 


CHAIRMAN JOHNSON: Motion has been made. 
Secretary, call the roll. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Karnette. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Karnette Aye. Senator Knight. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Knight Aye. Senator Romero. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Romero Aye. Senator Johnson. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Johnson Aye. Four to zero. 

CHAIRMAN JOHNSON: Congratulations. 

MS. FAIERMAN -MARKS: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN JOHNSON: Carlos Ramos, Director of the 
Teale Data Center. 

And Mr. Ramos, I'm sure you're aware, the 
Committee's very interested in hearing some elaboration 
regarding the security breach earlier in the year, and what the 
circumstances were that led up to that, and what has been done 
since that time. 

If I can sort of start out, it's my understanding 
that the Governor last fall issued an Executive Order with 
respect to making sure that all of our computer systems were 
secure . 

So, if you could begin your comments by telling 
us what the Executive Order entailed, and whether or not the 
Teale Data Center fulfilled the requirements of that Executive 

MR. RAMOS: Certainly, Mr. Chair and Members. 

Carlos Ramos, Director of the Teale Data Center. 

My understanding of the Executive Order that was 
issued, it essentially placed some requirements on the 
Department of Information Technology to ensure that the state's 
IT infrastructure was secure. 

As a part of that, the Department of Information 
Technology was required to go out, do an assessment of state 
departments to make sure that they had in place security 
measures, policies and procedures to make sure that our 
information systems were secure. And the Department of 
Information Technology did that by sending out essentially a 


survey and a self-assessment requirement for departments. 

So, as a department, we were asked to certify 
that we did in fact have security measures in place, meaning 
that we had measures to protect our information security assets, 
that we had policies in place to make sure that our information 
security assets were safe-guarded. 

We did certify to that at Teale. 

CHAIRMAN JOHNSON: What was the basis for the 
certification? Did you go around and actually — did you order 
a physical check? How did that operate? 

MR. RAMOS: The way that we did our assessment 
was that our information security office went out and did 
basically a sampling of the systems that we had over at Teale. 
We did look to make sure that we had in place security policies 
and processes and procedures that ensured that our systems 
were -- 

CHAIRMAN JOHNSON: But were there performed 
actual physical checks of each of the systems that you 

MR. RAMOS: Not every single system. We did a 
sampling of the systems. 

We did do physical checks. And we do, on a 
regular basis, do security scans. 

CHAIRMAN JOHNSON: It's my understanding that the 
Executive Order was really in response to the attacks of last 
September at the World Trade Center and at the Pentagon. And 
given the very serious nature of those attacks, and that the 
Executive Order followed on that, wouldn't it have been prudent 


to conduct a very thorough examination? 

I'm well known as the computer expert, not. I'm 
computer ignorant and proud, as I've told you before. 

But these questions about firewalls, and security 
measures, and patches to systems, so on, what kind of an 
evaluation was done to make sure that, for example, patches that 
had been suggested by the suppliers of these systems, that they 
were in fact added and implemented? What were the procedures? 
Was it just left to chance? How did that work? 

MR. RAMOS: No. Let me tell you first of all 
what our procedures were back then, and what they are now. 

In terms of the patches and firewalls, and other 
security measures that we put in place, we did have, even on the 
State Controller system that was — that was hacked, security 
measures in place. It was not behind what we call our firewall, 
but we did have other perimeter access, security measures in 

We had essentially a segment of our network set 
aside specifically for that, with some of the same firewall 
sorts of capabilities. 

In terms of the patches, our requirements at 
Teale are that patches are applied to systems as soon as they 
become available. So, we did have that requirement in place. 
We did have -- 

CHAIRMAN JOHNSON: One of the issues that's come 
up is that in applying these patches, they're cumulative. So, 
four patches over a period of time are recommended, and the 
first three aren't applied, then trying to apply the fourth 


patch, that assumes that the earlier patches, if I understand 
correctly, were applied. 

Is that correct? 

MR. RAMOS: That's not my understanding of the 
way the patches work. 

My understanding is that the patches, as they — 
they are cumulative in that as you apply later patches, they 
catch you up on your earlier patches, a reason being that not 
all patches are always going to be applied. Usually you have to 
make an assessment as to whether or not they address a 
particular vulnerability -- they address particular 
vulnerability, if they are, you know, based on the configuration 
of the particular system that you have. 

So, in fact, we don't apply every patch that 
comes out. In fact, in some cases you have to do an assessment. 
Actually, in all cases you have to do an assessment as to 
whether or not — 

CHAIRMAN JOHNSON: What's the typical timeframe 
that ' s involved? 

MR. RAMOS: To apply the patches. 


MR. RAMOS: If it's a security risk, our 
requirement is that it be as soon as possible, and basically 

Now, on the particular system that we had, the 
State Controller's system, there was a -- there was a cycle that 
we would go through on that one. There was -- there's two 
servers on that system, a primary server and a backup server. 


It's an old system built on older technology. So our cycle on 
that one was to apply it first to the backup server to test it, 
make sure that applying the patch, that you don't actually break 
the system. Run it through two payroll cycles, and then apply 
it to the primary server. 

The patch had been applied to the backup server. 
It did not get applied to the primary server. The reason for 
that, I think, there's really two reasons for it. 

One is, there was some human error involved in 

And then secondly -- 

CHAIRMAN JOHNSON: Can you elaborate on human 
error for me just a little? 

MR. RAMOS: The person responsible for patching 
it just never got back to patch it. The systemic — 

CHAIRMAN JOHNSON: Went on to bigger and better 
things or what? 

MR. RAMOS: I think he just didn't get back to 
doing it. 

There is a bit of a resource issue in that unit, 
so -- 

CHAIRMAN JOHNSON: Let me ask the question, since 
this incident with the Controller's data, have you performed a 
detailed audit on all of the systems that you maintain? And how 
many of those required patches that had not been previously 

MR. RAMOS: We have gone back and inventoried all 
of our servers and documented the configurations of each of 


those . 

We did find one or two others that had patch 
dates that were, at least in my mind, somewhat old. So, we went 
back and asked, and tried to figure out why it was that those 
had not been patched, or why the patch dates on those were 
somewhat old. 

CHAIRMAN JOHNSON: Didn't someone at the Data 
Center have a responsibility for signing off, one way or the 
other? Either patch was applied, or it wasn't applied for this 

What's the timeframe for that? 

MR. RAMOS: Yes, there is a responsibility to do 
that. And really, I think, that was the second thing that we 

As I mentioned, the first thing that we found is 
there was some human error involved. 

The second one, I think, was more of a systemic 
issue in terms of, we have requirements that these be patched. 
What was happening at the Data Center is that individual 
managers of individual units that were responsible for specific 
sorts of systems each used different methods for logging, and 
tracking, and monitoring when the patches were being applied, 
and going back and double-checking them. That's the problem. 

Because what should have happened is, when that 
server wasn't patched, the unit managers should have been able 
come back monthly or on a semi-quarterly basis and say, "Hey, 
wait a minute. This server hasn't been patched. You know, why 
haven't you gotten back to it." 


CHAIRMAN JOHNSON: Why the hell not? 

MR. RAMOS: Exactly. 

And so, we've changed that. Now we've now 
documented the configuration of all of our servers. We have in 
place a process that requires every server to be -- to have a 
log that says when it was last maintained, just routine 
maintenance, when it was last patched. And the person that's 
responsible for that has to sign off on it. 

Once they get -- once they do that, the unit 
managers are held responsible for that. 

CHAIRMAN JOHNSON: Can you give us an idea of how 
many patches that had been suggested — during the course of 
your recent audits, how many patches were floating out there 
that hadn't been applied? 

MR. RAMOS: I don't have that information here. 
I know that there was at least two systems that had older patch 
dates . 

CHAIRMAN JOHNSON: And in these systems, were 
there multiple patches that had not been applied? 

MR. RAMOS: I don't have that information here, 
Senator. I'm sorry. I can certainly get that and bring it back 
to you. 

CHAIRMAN JOHNSON: I would think in terms of 
security -- again, I admit as I have in the past, I'm computer 
ignorant and proud, but it would seem to me that there would be 
a high priority even before, you know, the terrorist events of 
last fall, to apply patches that relate to security. 

Senator Karnette. 


SENATOR KARNETTE: I'm interested in similar 
things as Senator Johnson was talking about. 

I'm interested in the log. You talk about the 
log. And you have these different managers and different 
areas . 

Now, is the there one person — and I don't know 
whether it would be yourself or someone else — who checks each 
log? Because it really gets down to that; doesn't it? 

Can we be sure? I don't know if you can ever be 
absolutely sure, but can we be almost absolutely sure that that 
will be done hereafter, the logs? And logs will be kept? 

Because if someone checks the logs all the time, 
and you know when somebody signed off on them, people really 
know they're responsible. 

I think that's what you were getting at. Is that 
not true? 

MR. RAMOS: Right. The answer is, when -- we do 
have in place now, we did not at that point have in place, a 
consistently applied across-the-Data-Center process and 
mechanism to make sure that logs were verified, that — our 
information security office was going around and doing spot 
checks or audits on — not only on the systems, but actually on 
the management. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: If you're checking them, just 
give us an idea, how many different logs would there be? 

MR. RAMOS: There are a couple of hundred 
different servers at the Data Center. Those are managed by a 
number of different units within the Data Center. 


1 So, the logs that we have would be for each 

2 server. 

Now, I thought I heard you say system logs. 

4 We're not talking about the system logs at this point. That's a 

different mechanism that we use as well. We're actually 

6 doing -- 

SENATOR KARNETTE: The systems against the logs. 

8 That's what we were talking about just now. 

9 MR. RAMOS: There are two logs that we're dealing 

10 with. 

11 What we put in place right now is, we have a 

12 separate paper log, for lack of a better word, right now. 

13 SENATOR KARNETTE: Okay, you walk by, and you 

14 check it out somehow, and you put your name down. 

15 MR. RAMOS: Right, the person that's responsible 

16 for maintaining that box has to sign off on that, when was the 

17 last time they — 

18 SENATOR KARNETTE: And if you find out, if 

19 something happened, what would happen? This may sound 

20 ridiculous, but I'm like Senator Johnson. I don't know exactly 

21 how these things work. 

22 How do you know that that particular system or 

23 log is where the problem is? 

24 MR. RAMOS: Well, the log is just a journal of 

25 the actions taken on that system. 


27 MR. RAMOS: If there's a problem with the system, 

28 we have to go in and actually look at — 


CHAIRMAN JOHNSON: Was there a log maintained 
prior to this incident with the Controller's data? 

MR. RAMOS: On this particular system, and on 
this particular — the staff person did not maintain a log on 
this one. 

CHAIRMAN JOHNSON: I've mentioned before that 
Mrs. Johnson was damn unhappy to have to call around to 
everybody we do business with, and so on, because we didn't know 
what data precisely had been compromised and what the 
implications of that compromising of data was. And, you know, a 
couple hundred thousand state employees were in the same 
situation, so I've got a very simple question. 

Did anybody lose their job for this? Did someone 
who was responsible for human error, which is apparently a 
euphemism for simply not doing their job, and the supervisors 
who were supposed to be looking over their shoulder, did any of 
them lose their job? 

Or are the same people there, unless they've gone 
on, on their own, to some other employment? 

Was anyone disciplined? Was anyone fired? 

MR. RAMOS: The answer to that is yes. 

CHAIRMAN JOHNSON: Someone was fired or 

MR. RAMOS: Well, let me explain. 

There's basically three individuals, I guess, 
that I think are — their actions needed to be reviewed. 

In terms of the actual individual that was 
maintaining the system, one of the things that we have to do is 

to be able to go, get ahold of the system itself, and 

maintain -- do an assessment as to when in fact the last patch 

was applied to that. 

The challenge with that has been that that system 
was taken by the High Tech Crimes Task Force, and we have not 
gotten it back yet. So, we have to wait for that part, for them 
to finish their investigation, so we can come back and say, 
"Okay, your records indicate you patched it, you know, 
routinely. Now let's see what the system log itself says." 

So, until that happens, we have no way — 

CHAIRMAN JOHNSON: They have the originals, and 
there are no backups of these logs? How are they maintained 
physically? Is this a computer log? 

MR. RAMOS: This is the actual computer itself 
that was taken. 

CHAIRMAN JOHNSON: So you don't have them? 

MR. RAMOS: No, we don't have them. We had to 
rebuild the system, so we used completely new hardware. 

The other individuals involved was our 
information security office, whose responsibility is to make 
sure that the -- that the rules are followed, essentially. Our 
information security officer actually resigned and has left 
state service. 

And then we have our executive level, our Deputy 
Director, who is responsible for the whole information security 
operation for the Data Center. And that person has been 

CHAIRMAN JOHNSON: Let's say I have one of those 


positions now. 

What have you done to make sure that the person 
in that position knows what's going to happen if they don't do 
these things? 

MR. RAMOS: Well, what I've done is, I've sat 
down with the person and very clearly laid out the things that 
have to be in place and that have to happen. 

CHAIRMAN JOHNSON: I understand that. You spoke 
to that earlier. 

The question is not, what are the things that you 
want them to do. 

The question is, what is their understanding of 
the penalties that will follow their failure to do that? 

MR. RAMOS: Well, I think when we have the 
example of what's already happened with the first executive, and 
then, as I mentioned, I laid out for them very — 

CHAIRMAN JOHNSON: I mean, it's just a real 
simple question. Have you said to them, "You don't do this, and 
you're out on the street." 

It's very simple; isn't it really? 

MR. RAMOS: I've said the part about, "This is 
what you need to do. This is what I'm going to hold you 
accountable to." 

I haven't told them -- 

CHAIRMAN JOHNSON: At least with me, the thrust 
of these questions has to do with whether you keep your job. 

MR. RAMOS: I understand. 

CHAIRMAN JOHNSON: So, I'm making it very clear 


that at least speaking for me, I want some real accountability 
2 there. 

Senator Karnette, I'm sorry I interrupted you. 
4 SENATOR KARNETTE: Well, I'm concerned that it 

doesn't happen again. I'm very concerned about that, and I know 
6 you are, too, and I think we all are. 

It's difficult. Technology, I know, is a subject 
that all of us -- nobody is ever completely familiar with 
9 technology. I understand that. 

10 But we ultimately end up being the people who are 

11 expected to make sure that these things don't happen. Then we 

12 have to rely on staff. 

13 I think people do have to be let go if it's too 

14 tough for them. It's not that they don't try to do a good job, 
it's just not the job for them. I think everybody wants to do a 

16 good job. I have no question about that. 

17 Do you foresee, there's going to be retirements, 

18 and state's difficulties in recruiting and retaining 

19 informational technology staff. I mean, I know most people 
don't want to be hauled in front of all of us, and be expected 

21 to answer all these questions, and understand them as well. 

22 Do you think that there'll be any outsourcing? 

23 MR. RAMOS: In the security area? 
l~ SENATOR KARNETTE: In any area. 

25 MR. RAMOS: In information technology? 

26 SENATOR KARNETTE: Well, in the areas that you 

27 supervise, do you foresee any outsourcing? 

28 MR. RAMOS: Well, I think there's going to have 


to be. We do outsource some things now. 

The area where I see the need to do some 
outsourcing now is where you do have an incident, and you need 
to bring in some in-depth expertise in investigative techniques 
for information technology, forensics, those sorts of things. 

Now, outsourcing could be to another 
organization, like potentially the Department of Justice, or 
Highway Patrol, or somebody who may have other expertise. 

In this particular incident, we have had to go 
out and bring in outside consultants, meaning nonstate service 
people to help us with some of the investigation part of this. 

In terms of just information technology in 
general, there's certain aspects of information technology which 
I think the state just isn't skilled at doing yet, and that's, 
for example, the development of new applications. It's 
difficult to retain staff with those skills working for the 
state. Most of them go off into the private sector. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: Now it should be a little 
better, though, with Silicon Valley having sort of a down turn. 

MR. RAMOS: And actually, it is a little bit of a 
better time. 

The challenge right now for the state, of course, 
is we're under a hiring freeze. So, even that becomes very 
difficult right now. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: That's interesting, though. 
If you let somebody go, can you replace them? Or you can't even 
replace somebody? 

MR. RAMOS: You have to go through and get a 


1 specific exemption. 

2 SENATOR KARNETTE: I'll bet in this area it could 
be done, I would think. 

•; MR. RAMOS: And in our information security 

office, we are going through the exemption process to be able to 

6 fill that vacancy as well. 

CHAIRMAN JOHNSON: The gentleman who resigned has 

8 not been replaced because of the hiring freeze? 

9 MR. RAMOS: That's correct. We're going through 

10 the -- there is a process by which you have to get an exemption 

11 to do that. Unfortunately, right now it's my understanding that 

12 no positions are exempt. 

13 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON: One would think, in light of 

14 the Executive Order of last fall, that that would be a high 

15 priority of the Governor, to see that the people responsible for 

16 maintaining the security of the data, that we would not leave 

17 those positions unfilled. 

18 Senator Knight. 

19 SENATOR KNIGHT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I've 

20 got two questions. 

21 We have a maintenance log. We now know that we 

22 have to update the various servers from time to time, and we 
have that pretty well under control so that we do that. 

24 I want to know, how do you know when one of those 

25 servers has been breached? How do you know when the system has 

26 been -- 

27 MR. RAMOS: The way that we know is a couple of 

28 different ways. We have what's called intrusion detection 


software. It's basically a monitoring tool that all of our 
servers are now behind. 

At the time that this happened on the 
Controller's server, that system was not behind that tool. 

So, that tool monitors on a regular and constant 
basis any attacks or attempts to breach the system. We get 
actually several hundred thousand attempts each month. Of 
those, several thousand — 

SENATOR KNIGHT: And that's all in real time? 

MR. RAMOS: That's all in real time. 

We also have a notification system so that if 
something does affect the availability of a server, the people 
responsible for maintaining and running that server get 
notified. In fact, that's on a 24 by 7 basis. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: How do they get notified? Is 
there some centralized area where this information is displayed? 

MR. RAMOS: Yes, we have an operations center. 
Basically it's a big room with consoles with big screens that 
monitor -- that display each and every server, that one will 
show you if something happens. In addition, if it happens 
during an off shift, and actually even if it's during the 
regular working day, an e-mail notification goes out. Every one 
of our folks carries one of these pagers that has a text 
messaging capability which notifies them, something's wrong with 
this server, or there's been an -- intrusion detection software 
detected an attack against this server. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: Secondly, have you implemented, 
or do you plan to implement some kind of a red team, or a murder 


board, or whatever, a group or two or three, however many 
individuals it is, to try and breach your systems on a 
continuous basis? 

MR. RAMOS: I'm not sure what those terms — 
somebody to come out and try and get in there. 


MR. RAMOS: Yeah, we have -- 

SENATOR KNIGHT: Hire a hacker and say, "See what 
you can do. " 

MR. RAMOS: Yes. We've already done that, 
working with the CHP, where they actually hired somebody to come 
in, and we caught them. 

Then we're also right now have an RFP, a 
procurement on the street to bring in some technical experts to 
try and do that. My plan is to do that on a regular basis. 

It's a budgetary issue, I will let you know. 
Those things are expensive. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: But that's a part of your plan? 

MR. RAMOS: Yes. And we actually have already 
done it once and have another request that I think in the next 
month or so -- 

SENATOR KNIGHT: I would think that would be a 
continuing effort. 

MR. RAMOS: Yes, and it will be. 


CHAIRMAN JOHNSON: Senator Romero. 


Senator Johnson has raised a number of concerns 


that I think many of us share with respect to the breakdown, and 
what this means for just the maintenance of security 
information. The privacy issue is a real concern. 

Let me ask you, though, you appeared before us 
last April, late April. According to the Controller, this 
break-in had occurred on April 4th or 5th. 

When you came before the Committee, were you 
aware already that this break-in had occurred? 

MR. RAMOS: No. In fact, the Data Center itself 
do not become aware of the issue until May 2nd, I believe. That 
was when our technical person responsible for that server got 
the first notice of it, or became aware of the issue. 

If you like, I can talk about how that came 
about . 

SENATOR ROMERO: I guess maybe more of interest 
to me is, what is being done now for us to be assured that if 
there is a breakdown, and we hope that there won't be, but 
should there be a breakdown, that you get very immediate 

And I don't have a Mrs. Johnson, so I was one of 
those persons having to call around and make notification. So, 
I can relate to Mrs. Johnson. 

CHAIRMAN JOHNSON: There are pluses to being a 
married man. 

[Laughter. ] 

MR. RAMOS: The reason that it took us a while to 
find out about it is because that particular system was outside 
of the security measure that I just mentioned to Senator Knight, 


our intrusion detection software. That software, it's a system 

2 that monitors all of our servers. 

3 When we rebuilt the system for the Controller, we 
A moved it behind the firewall, which is the perimeter security 

device, and then behind intrusion detection software. So, that 

6 system is now monitored constantly. 

So, should the same -- had that been behind the 

8 intrusion detection software, we would have noticed that on 

9 April 5th, as soon as it happened. 

10 SENATOR ROMERO: Are there any other servers 

11 outside the firewall? 

12 MR. RAMOS: There are two other servers outside 

13 the firewall. They're not system servers or application 

14 servers. 

15 One is what's called a domain name server. And 

16 what that does is, it's basically like a traffic cop. When you 

17 go in and log onto a website, you type in, and 

18 you get to the Senate web page. 

19 But in terms of the way that the computer that 

20 runs that web page is identified, it doesn't actually identify 

21 itself by that name. It identifies by what's called an IP 

22 address, which is a series of numbers. 

23 The domain name server, all that does is connect 

24 incoming requests to log into -- or to access certain web 

25 servers. But it takes the words and connects it to the IP 

26 address. So, that's very commonly outside of firewalls because 

27 of the sheer volume of hits that come against those. 

28 We do have other security measures in place for 


that server. 

The second server that's outside is one that we 
call our network news server. And what that does is, it goes 
out and scrapes news items off the public internet and just 
makes them available. So, there's no data, there's no 
applications. They don't connect to anything else in terms of 
any of our other production servers or systems. 

And again, those are out there specifically 
because of the volume of traffic that they get. Were you to put 
them behind a firewall, it would basically overwhelm the 
firewall. Again, millions of hits on those a day. 



Any further questions from Committee Members? 
Witnesses in support? Witnesses in opposition? 

I would indicate to the Members of the Committee 
that I continue to have very serious questions about this 
break-in, the causes for the break-in, and remain at this point 
unconvinced that sufficient steps have been taken to prevent it. 

So, I'm going to recommend, in fairness to 
Mr. Ramos, since Mr. Burton is not here, that we put this matter 
over for a vote at a future hearing of the Committee. 

And we may or may not ask that you reappear at 
that time. Thank you very much, sir. 

[Thereupon this portion of the 

Senate Rules Committee hearing 

was terminated at approximately. 

5: 15 P.M. ] 






























I, EVELYN J. MIZAK, a Shorthand Reporter of the State 
of California, do hereby certify: 

That I am a disinterested person herein; that the 
foregoing transcript of the Senate Rules Committee hearing was 
reported verbatim in shorthand by me, Evelyn J. Mizak, and 
thereafter transcribed into typewriting. 

I further certify that I am not of counsel or 
attorney for any of the parties to said hearing, nor in any way 
interested in the outcome of said hearing. 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 


day of /yLk^-^sSc^ , 2002. 




Shorthand Reporter 

Additional copies of this publication may be purchased for $3.00 per copy 
(includes shipping and handling) plus current California sales tax. 

Senate Publications 

1020 N Street, Room B-53 

Sacramento, CA 95814 


Make checks payable to SENATE RULES COMMITTEE. 
Please include Stock Number 463-R when ordering. 







OCT - 2 2002 


9:04 A.M. 


OCT - 2 1 






ROOM 3191 


9:04 A.M. 

Reported by: 

Evelyn J. Mizak 
Shorthand Reporter 











GREG SCHMIDT, Executive Officer 
PAT WEBB, Committee Secretary 

11 NETTIE SABELHAUS, Consultant on Governor's Appointments 






Stephen P. Teale Data Center 







3 Proceedings 1 


Governor ' s Appointees : 



6 Stephen P . Teale Data Center 1 

Motion to Confirm 1 

Statement of Intent by SENATOR JOHNSON 1 

Committee Action 2 

Termination of Proceedings 3 

Certificate of Reporter 4 


CHAIRMAN BURTON: File Item Three, Carlos Ramos, 
Director of the Teale Data Center. 

Mr. Ramos was heard in Rules Committee when I was 
absent. Suddenly, Senator Johnson had some problems. 

He wrote to Senator Johnson to clarify some 
issues because he felt he was not as articulate as he might have 

The two individuals directly responsible for the 
breach no longer have their positions. The Information Security 
Officer resigned. The Deputy Director has been removed. 

Senator Peace's Privacy Committee held hearings, 
and it's my understanding he believed that Mr. Ramos acted 
appropriately once he was informed of the breach, and he's taken 
the right steps to prevent future occurrence. 

I'll move the nomination, but I'll call Senator 

SENATOR JOHNSON: I intend to vote no, and I'm 
sorry that Mr. Ramos isn't here for me -- oh, I'm glad that you 
are here, because I want to look you in the eye and tell you 
that, after having had the opportunity to question you in the 
Privacy Committee, and to question you again in the Rules 
Committee, I'm convinced that you have demonstrated a lack of 
understanding of the severity of the breach, that your responses 
have been inadequate, that, in effect, you're telling us that 
you're locking the barn door after the horse is out. 

I'm very concerned about the potential for these 

kinds of break-ins in the past. The prior break-in could have 
been avoided by simply following standard industry practice. 

Additionally, there was the Executive Order from 
the Governor. And if an Executive Order from the Governor, in 
the wake of the 9/11 incident, wouldn't lead to a complete audit 
of all the systems, I don't know what the in the world would. 

I just, therefore, believe that you've 
demonstrated a lack of an understanding of the severity, the 
potential impact that that breach had on hundreds of thousands 
of state employees. 

So again, I regret, but I must and will oppose 
your confirmation. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Any other comments from Members 
of the Committee? 

Move the nomination. Call the roll. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Karnette. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Karnette Aye. Senator Knight. 

Senator Romero 


SECRETARY WEBB: Romero Aye. Senator Johnson 

SECRETARY WEBB: Johnson No. Senator Burton. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Burton Aye. Three to one. 
CHAIRMAN BURTON: Congratulations, sir. 
MR. RAMOS: Thank you. 
[Thereupon this portion of the 




Senate Rules Committee hearing 
was terminated at approximately 
9:15 A.M. ] 



I, EVELYN J. MIZAK, a Shorthand Reporter of the State 
of California, do hereby certify: 

That I am a disinterested person herein; that the 
foregoing transcript of the Senate Rules Committee hearing was 
reported verbatim in shorthand by me, Evelyn J. Mizak, and 
thereafter transcribed into typewriting. 

I further certify that I am not of counsel or 
attorney for any of the parties to said hearing, nor in any way 
interested in the outcome of said hearing. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 



day of C^-^^y^"'^ 



, 2002. 



M , 


Shorthand Reporter 

Additional copies of this publication may be purchased for $3.00 per copy 
(includes shipping and handling) plus current California sales tax. 

Senate Publications 

1020 N Street, Room B-53 

Sacramento, CA 95814 


Make checks payable to SENATE RULES COMMITTEE. 
Please include Stock Number 464-R when ordering.